#leftist strategy

[edenfenixblogs]

Pretty sure on of my close friends muted or blocked me on everything because I post too much about antisemitism.

Must be nice to be able to look away from your friends’ suffering. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[uncanny-tranny]

The thing that sucks about misogyny is that it's not just a problem for one group of people or one gender group. If you want to combat bigotries, you (impersonal) have to not come at it from the angle of bigotry as an identity you have, but as a set of beliefs and actions. To be a misogynist isn't an identity like being gay or a similarly deep and personal identity. A misogynist is somebody who believes in and acts upon misogynistic ideas, myths, or any other such thing.

This goes for pretty much any bigotry, and the idea of bigotry as identity does us all a disservice, especially if you turn the bigotry into essentialism. When you essentialize bigotry in a certain group of people, you empower people to keep said bigotry unchecked and uninterrogated. That does everyone a disservice.

[guiltyidealist]

It should be a criminal offense if an insurance company is responsible for a delay in a policyholder's necessary health care.

Withholding prescribed treatments, even for just a day, can be anywhere from inconvenient to catastrophic for the victim. Medical providers may not withhold necessary treatment from any patient on any grounds, as it is their duty to provide it-- it should be justly illegal for any "middle man" to interfere with a medical provider's legal and ethical obligation to treat a patient.

Severity of the charge and its legal consequences should depend upon the scope of the offense (length of delay) and its consequences to the victim (impact on the person).

The testimonies of the victim, the pharmacy, and the medical provider who prescribed the treatment should be key considerations for the determination. Additional important testimony should come from the victim's other medical providers, housemates, family, educators/mentors, colleagues/coworkers, or employers.

The charge should become criminal record for the company. The company (perhaps the agent's office) should be fined per day delayed.

Some taxation can be applied; just to pay off the folks who do the filing, advocacy, testimony, processing. A hefty majority of the fine should be compensation owed to the victim.

If delays became a criminal charge on companies' records, then companies would have a strong motive to terminate agents who aren't performing with punctuality. It would become their best financial interest to invest only in timely agents who would, in turn, gain a best interest to invest only in timely subordinates.

I posit that insurance delays would wane significantly, resulting in more timely delivery of treatments to policyholders, and many people's qualities of life would improve drastically for it.

[edwordsmyth]

"The essay is an embodiment of a more expansive intellectual labyrinth that haunts Western intellectuals. It characterizes the Palestinians as “necessary and inevitable victims,” rendering them visible only as archival footnotes in yet another efficacious settler colonial enterprise. Is it not curious, one might ask, that the very sympathy shown to Palestinians appears directly proportional to their perceived inability to confront the uniform machinery of settler colonialism? There is a hidden gratification in witnessing this tragic narrative from afar. Israel’s persistent upper hand serves as a powerful catalyst for Western intellectuals’ feel-good sympathy, a kind of pseudo-solidarity that whispers to Palestinians: “We are with you, but only so long as you remain tragic victims sinking graciously into your own abyss.” One might even argue that this sympathy is contingent upon the Palestinians’ maintenance of their tragic status quo.

There’s a safety in this for those intellectuals: the Palestinian experience, as heart-wrenching as it is, remains comfortably distant, a spectacle to be consumed. This pre-inscribed script becomes an eerie marker of the limitations of critical intellectual engagement with Palestine and the Palestinians.

As a result, when Palestinians dare to rebel and challenge their imposed fate after years of oppression, the responses are predictably schizophrenic. The same intellectuals who once sobbed at our plight are now torn. Many become moral policemen, quickly brandishing the baton of condemnation, but even more importantly, readily “adopting” with full intensity Israel’s curated and sensationalized version of the events of October 7 in the so-called Gaza envelope (the Israeli settlements bordering Gaza).

The collective voice, which once resonated with sympathy, now echoes with cautionary tales that warn against the wrath of the oppressed, which is barbaric, primordial, and awakens right-wing fascism.

The real paradox is in the mistaken understanding of how Zionist vengeance works — it doesn’t simply react to Palestinian actions, provocations, or even their capacity to invoke terror, but goes beyond the conventional realm of cause and effect and seeks to punish the audacity of mere Palestinian existence. Even a Palestinian like President Mahmoud Abbas, who allows Israel to continue expanding its settler colonies in the West Bank and serve its security and financial interests, is an affront to the settlers. All that the Palestinian Authority (PA) has received in return for its security and civil cooperation with Israel is financial sanctions and a hidden desire to get rid of Israel’s dependency on the PA’s security cooperation.

The Dahiya doctrine is evident in Gaza today. Israel has declared that any attack on it that it deems significant will result in the comprehensive destruction of both civil and governmental infrastructure, including bombing villages, cities, and towns back into the “stone age” through wholesale destruction. In other words, any form of resistance, regardless of the target, will be met with no less than a scorched earth policy from the air.

The world has sent a clear message to the Palestinians: there will be no legal respite, no political relief, only limited support for nonviolence, and occasional condemnations when and if Israel is perceived to commit crimes. In fact, there is violence in this insistence on nonviolence by the international community because it is effectively an invitation for Palestinians to lie down and die.

The various layers of Israel’s defensive structure include the geographic proximity of its military installations and its civilian settlements, including the wide presence of military-trained police forces in civilian areas. The wide ownership of guns, specifically in frontier areas like the Gaza envelope, would also be an important consideration for any military planning or offensive operation.

With the available information, we can surmise that the operation had three main tactical goals: capturing Israeli soldiers in exchange for prisoners, getting information or weapons from Israel’s many military bases, and making it hard for any police or military force to easily clear and retake the Gaza envelope (which they would probably do by negotiating over hostages they held in the settlements inside the Gaza envelope).

This meant that fighters set up camp inside Israeli settlements to try to delay the recapture of the envelope. They did this by fighting or negotiating for a long time to free the hostages while stopping civilians from resisting the deep maneuver within Israeli territory. The problem is that growing evidence shows that Israel wasn’t interested in negotiating over hostages and instead prioritized retaking the Gaza envelope by shelling its own settlements, killing the fighters, and perhaps leading to the death of its own civilians.

The Palestinian military strategy aimed to delay and postpone, while Israel’s strategy focused on the rapid recovery and reclamation of its territory. And it is highly unlikely that this policy did not at least exacerbate the extent of the civilian casualties. Numerous testimonies from Israeli survivors indicate that Israeli military and police units may not have exercised caution in the battles around the Gaza envelope. This evidence has encouraged a group of Israelis to write an open letter encouraging their fellow citizens to demand the truth of the events of October 7.

The primary difference, then, between when Israel commits its crimes against Palestinian civilians and when Palestinians do it stems from an international network that legitimizes, clarifies, and codifies the logic behind Israeli military actions. This gives it an appearance of respectability, even when the underlying rationale appears deeply flawed or seemingly justifies the large-scale killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Hamas can remain barbaric, and Israel can remain a strong “democratic and liberal” ally of the United States. The first engages in a mindless act of profane violence, while the second engages in calculated and methodical strikes, a sacred form of violence.

Not delving into the military logic of the attack exemplifies an aversion to confronting the reality of violence and the logics that animate it, an avoidance that is endemic among certain intellectuals. It’s not just about the refusal to bring these topics to light, but about what this refusal signifies about the problematics of dealing with the logic of Palestinian violence, especially in an environment that simply casts it as profane, detestable, and morally degraded.

Perhaps what is central to any moral judgment is that these judgments need to be rigorously subjected to evidence, especially when Israel refuses to share much of the evidence it has. Did Hamas issue orders for the killing of civilians, or was the killing of civilians an excess on the part of the fighters? How many of the Israelis were killed in the exchange of fire with fighters? Did the Israeli military effort to retake the Gaza envelope take into consideration the presence of Israeli civilians? These questions are important, not only because they will provide us with a clearer picture, but because the official Israeli version of events was employed to justify the Dresden-like air campaign against Gaza and the mass murder of Palestinians.

Why wouldn’t an assault on Israel’s primary nerve — its deterrence and military power — not lead to a humbling experience that might open new avenues for a new political solution? While such prospects seem distant in the heat of battle and in light of Israel’s genocidal intent, the actual battle on the ground is what will decide the future.

Skirting their political utility and military logic and confining them to mere “vengeance” ignores the fact that all wars and battles, no matter how horrific, bloody, and tragic, might ultimately create the space for new possibilities — even hopeful ones. This line of thinking also ignores the world as Palestinians experience and perceive it — that is, as long as Israelis live in this assured certainty of their all-encompassing power, the will to change the reality of the Palestinians will remain absent.

And even if the Palestinian resistance fails to snatch a relative victory in this battle, the alternative would have been a slow death.

This is the kind of genuine critical engagement with the Palestinian resistance that we require. It isn’t solely about Palestine’s stance against ethnic cleansing, or its own fight to reclaim Palestine — rather, it is a liberation movement with global resonance that represents a universal struggle.

Perhaps the perception that the events of October 7 were nothing more than an expression of intra-Palestinian necrosis is more an indication of what intellectuals secretly wish for us. But we in Palestine desire and fight for a world that includes us, and a world that includes everyone else. Mourn us if you want, or don’t. Condemn us, or don’t. It’s not like we have not heard the cries of condemnation before."

[decolonize-the-everything]

why do you think everything is propaganda?

I don't think everything is propaganda (math for example) but if someone is trying to persuade you of something with the goal of changing your view/opinion that's propaganda.

It just so happens there is a Lot of propaganda in politics because Everyone wants you on their side so they're Constantly trying to entice you to join them... With propaganda.

And you can propagandize anything.

Voting importance, who to vote for, morals you think people "should" have, etc.

All propaganda:

Another example would be:

Democrats making all conservatives out to be extremists threatening human rights while making themselves out to be the "party of progress"who could stop them even though Democrats were the ones elevating alt right candidates. This strategy is actually why Trump won, but thanks to an amazing propaganda campaign most people don't know that and even if they did, they likely wouldn't believe it.

You know because "Democrats are progressive so that doesn't make sense, you must be lying or misinformed."

Instead non-voters, "stubborn leftists," and Republicans get the blame for the 2016 election. But even republicans are pissed about it- theyre losing their ballot slots to extremists.

I understand the knee jerk reaction to this is "good the Republicans are losing"

But I need you to look around at 2023 and realize the very real contribution and responsibility Democrats have at the elevated extremism.

Look at the effects left in Trump's wake.

Have you ever thought to look at Democrats to blame? No.

That's their propaganda at work.

Democrats are Good at propaganda which is why I call it out. People don't see democratic propaganda as propaganda so they aren't consuming their politics critically anymore.

[samwisethewitch]

I know a lot of us will be migrating away from Tumblr if they do away with the chronological dash, so here's a link to the Anarchist Pagans And Witches Discord server I'm a mod for. Despite the name, leftist witches, pagans, and occultists of all stripes are welcome. 💕

[weareuniqueandimportant]

YOU SHOULD JUST COMMIT SSSSCIDE... YOU'RE WORTHLESS... YOU VIEW US THIS WAY YOU'RE AN ABUSER A KILLER A MURDERER... TRULY... YOU WOULDN'T EVEN LISTEN TO US YOUR HANDS THEY'RE ON OUR THROAT... YOU'RE WORTHLESS AS RESULT... GO AHEAD... YOUR VALUE IS COMPLETE 0...

THIS POST IS ABOUT LESBIAN FOOD... NOTHING MATURE ABOUT THAT... I LOVE EATING SSSSIDE... THAT IS A TYPE OF FISH WE WOMAN TEND TO EAT TOGETHER... WHY DO THIS TO US 😢...

DAMN... I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS COMPLETELY SHADOWBANNED POST WAS CHECKED BY THE SITE... THAT'S CRAZY... WHO EVEN FOUND THIS...? OH WHATEVER... HA.

[dipperdesperado]

notes on class analysis beyond class reductionism

In which your favorite anarchist cherry-picks their favorite pieces of identity politics and syncretizes them with his favorite parts of sociological class analysis (with a focus on Marxian conceptions) and center-periphery theories of the same topic… for the sake of abolishing oppression.

Class and economic reduction are some of the worst theoretical and methodological mistakes that we can make in our analysis. Class reductionism is an understanding that the principal unit of analysis for analyzing social conditions is economic class. Other facets of social being, adorned with the dubious “superstructural”[1] labels are seen as unimportant to deal with. Economic reduction is about (1) seeing the “real”[2] determinants of social life as economic and therefore (2) understanding the “base”[3] of society as mechanically determining the elements that exist “superstructurally”. It’s an orientation that talks about inevitable moments of historical development, based on an analysis of the economic situation. When folks rail against Marxist analyses, this tends to be a recurrent target of critique. 

This approach has two big issues. While economics are important, and in some cases are good to see as “primary” in a vague sense[4], they don’t paint the full picture. Reality isn't just economic distribution, production, and consumption, even if we decide that the only “reality” we care about is human sociality. This thinking relatedly doesn't allow us to understand the full scope of what revolutionary potentialities exist by way of class analysis. Said otherwise, focusing solely on class analysis makes that mode have to do more lifting than it is capable of doing, rendering it ineffectual, like trying to make a fish win a footrace, just because it is really fast in the water. We can’t just focus on one variable or fact of interest in our analysis, if we want our analysis to capture a sense of complexity. We need the right tools for the right jobs. Alongside this, we have to always keep in mind that we exist in a dialectical relationship[5] with those tools. A separate can of worms can be opened up if we look at the ways that complex adaptive systems function—seeing the Cerberus of capitalism, modernity, and coloniality as such would illuminate that no one element of its functions is “primary”[6]. That kind of linear thinking only serves to encourage fruitless intellectual pursuits and failed revolutionary regimes. 

If the working class defined by a specific relationship with the means of production, and we have a class reductionist perspective, it can lead to us assuming ideals and extremes represent the whole[7]. We are trying to apprehend totalities with too limited of a dataset[8]. While class and economics are necessary, they are insufficient in an analysis of social conditions, and of the potential that exists for change along realistic[9] lines. 

One way for us to supersede these failure points is by way of a commitment to relationality. When I say this, I am referring to an understanding based in looking at the relationships between our loci of interest[10], in a way that prioritizes evidence (credible information sourced from the world) over hypotheses (or inductive, deductive, or abductive conclusions), with a hyper-critical and skeptical stance towards grand narratives. If there is such a thing, we, as far as we know, can only make approximations. While these can improve, even to the extent that our working models provide all that we need to engage in reality, they will always be models. This commitment isn’t modernist (building grand narratives) or postmodernist (critiquing all structures that exist and living within that critique, by way of being unable to surpass the object of critique). It is metamodernist: an orientation that is dialectical and syncretic, taking the critiques found from metamodernism seriously while believing in the existence of a reality, accessing it through a sober assessment of our capacities and limitations. 

If we want our theory, method, and practice to be based in what is by way of what we want to be, this is paramount. I see class and economic reduction as prioritizing hypotheses to rationalize with flattering evidence, rather than creating hypotheses that are based on evidence. 

A requisite part of this relationality is through having an analysis of positionality. This can be by way of intersectionality[11], interpenetration[12], and/or imbrication[13]. Positionality is an understanding of where you are located, socially, politically, and economically, by way of your identities, properties[14], and experiences. This is looking at the social hierarchies at play and seeing where you are at, in a given moment/period of focus. The "i-words" come in when we use that analysis to inform our practice, bound to a commitment to centering the marginalized. 

The center-periphery model as discussed by FARJ is a useful way to stretch class analysis, but mixing models, without explaining points of divergence before we converge can cause confusion. When we use the center-periphery model to discuss society, and an analysis that is based in intersectionality or similar frameworks talk about bringing the margins to the center, we are not asking for “representation” or “maintenance” of the structures social hierarchy as currently formatted. There is a tacit understanding embedded in this analysis that, if we are to, for example, desire a structure that empowers Black women to have multifaceted, sustaining experiences of freedom and self-determination, whatever we build would be radically different than what currently exists. This commitment is a practical way that we can “destroy” the centers of power. This is what actually allows us to (con)federalize[15] power. This is why understanding positionality is important. If each individual’s uniqueness is their own totality, having an understanding of the different elements, identities, and properties that make up who they are (in regards to it being relevant to the analysis) will allow us to see how we relate to power structures. This gives us an understanding of where to plant strategic and tactically effective action. In any given moment or situation, we might be able to take stock of if we are reinforcing or undermining concentrations of power rather than (con)federalizing of power. If, based on our social composition[16], the most marginalized folks don’t feel safe or heard, we’re doing something wrong in our practice that needs to be revised. 

To make sure we're clear, this is not to say we focus on identity “alone”. This is why we advocate for using economic and political properties along with identities in our understanding of positionality. We can't ignore any of these elements if we want a complete analysis, and centering the marginalized allows our practice to hold the most liberatory potential. Class analysis, which is what I'll call the focus of traditional/conventional leftism, broadly fixates on two things in my estimation: (1) how class interests align and contradict, leading to class conflict, class warfare, and the potentialities for abolishing class. In this vein, the other part of these potentialities is (2) how to build unity. I think that these are useful starting points, but present some issues. Since class analysis is relatively fixed and general rather than relational, it can easily lead to vulgar conclusions from the analysis, where we hyperfixate on specific, mythologized groups of folks that don't hold up to our expectations in reality. It also has the effect of the things we ask for being limited by a desire to build unity.

Unity, in this case, tends to be based on that overarching conception. “we should do this because of our objective class interests” type shit. Again, while it may be true that as economically dispossessed folks, it would be advantageous for us to have control over the means of production or whatever, that alone isn't connecting with the full breadth of how we experience our lives and has an almost Christianity-faith-based, “searching for salvation” vibe to it. “Follow me and I’ll set you free” type shit. It isn't specific enough, as classes aren't monolithic. We have to struggle through our differences, building solidarity based on a bottom-up understanding of shared needs and desires (and how those interact with and shape personal needs and desires). The unity method by way of the most general elements that unite folks is more top-down, simplifying reality in a way that isn't as useful when we're at the ground level. This makes authoritarianism the only real method of holding it together (as top down means easily lead to top down ends), creating weak movements that are vulnerable to outside actors agitating the differences that exist and are being ignored, widening fissures within the movement. Not to mention the way that people who intuitively or lucidly understand that they don't fit into that mythologized model and thus will not participate. I know that when I look at the labor movement, and see all White dudes (but I see many more kinds of embodiment when actually looking at workplaces), I feel like that’s not a place meant for me. 

If we want to have folks join our movements, we need to be more specific in our analysis, so that our practice is more accurate and aligns with the world as it is while enabling us to make it as we like. We should specify the conflicts and contradictions that exist in society so that we can see, across sectors and spaces, where the spaces for intervention can arise, or how to take advantage of the ones that exist. By having positionality and any of the “i’s” in mind, and by looking at facilitating expansive conceptions of desire[17], we can actually create movement spaces that are more holistic in their approach.

A way that this type of analysis becomes useful in multiple situations is by understanding how it can fractalize. For the sake of this conversation, we can work with the scales of Macro (class/umbrella identity), Meso (section), Micro (bloc), and Nano (individual). 

Macro is at the highest level. When looking at analyzing where someone is in society for the sake of liberatory change, the macro level is the most broad/shallow and common features of groups of people. When people talk about the rich, the proletariat, or any other classes, they are on the macro level. This is useful for us to understand “the meta”[18], and get into all of the stuff that class analysis illuminates: class antagonism, the ways that all of the -isms affect people in a broad sense, and how these things change over a broad timescale.

Meso is us zooming in a bit--instead of looking at just “classes”, used here to mean “types”, we start to understand “sections” of those classes using intersectionality and positionality with more specificity. Rather than just referring to Black people or working people, we may refer to Black young women or German working people. It is understanding that, while we are still at a high level, there is more specificity at play that is useful to have awareness of. Just like there are shared experiences of alienation from the Means of Production for all working class people, we can see how zooming in specifically allows us to see what that actually means for certain sections of whatever unifying element of a given “class”. This is able to let us know that not all workers/genders/racial communities are created monolithically, and within a given community there are sections that have their own interests due to their positionality. 

Micro is about looking at actual groups of actual people, seeing the blocs that exist within our subgroups. For example, if we're looking at Black folks, we can see how sections are composed, and we can look at the actual circumstances in an area of interest to see how different sections relate to one another, to see what contradictions are invisibilized by way of not zooming in enough. Rather than sticking at a higher level and saying that there should be unity solely due to one or two shared variables of intersection, there can be an understanding of how people are seen in society as is, with the capacity to try and shift those resonances and dissonances into more beneficial assemblages for the goals of liberation. If there are contradictions between people connected by variables found in the higher level/more general classes, we can start at a bloc level, building our way up towards people seeing and acting in their “class interests”.

Nano is zooming all the way in. It is understanding specific folks, and seeing their specific experiences intimated and imbricated by the above scales. It is easy, especially when trying to understand how to change society, to not look at individuals. But, ignoring individuals, the building blocks of society, will leave good materials on the cutting room floor. I think we should oscillate between more and less individual understandings, so that we can mutualize the relationships between individuals, collectives, and collectives of collectives.

It's worth noting that all of these are connected, and we move from one to another based on what we're trying to understand. If we're looking at the structure of society, then class analysis, in both meanings of the word, is useful. If we're trying to relate to each other as individuals, we need to think about things at that level, not eschewing an awareness of systemic dynamics. We run into a lot of issues if we don't make sure our method is well-suited to our problems that we're trying to understand.

If we can stretch the idea of class to not just be an economic thing, but to focus on positions in social hierarchies, that allows us to understand oppression on different scales from the interpersonal to the societal, and gives us room to think about what it means to be in one position or another. By framing this in ontologies and epistemologies of  Black feminisms, we come away with a flexible framework for analyzing those positions, and we can, in every situation, center the marginalized, so that we have a more specific, intentional way to expand our understanding of prefiguration and material solidarity. This points us towards uniting in ways that undermine different social hierarchies that reinforce one another. By having these tools at our disposal, we can create unified action through maximal prefiguration in our practice. If we are making something that works for the least privileged of us, we have much less work to do for the more privileged of us. This also ensures that those folks aren't left behind, the way that they can be when we don't do the work to zoom in enough. If they are at the “center”, there is no “center”. If there is a “center”, then there are marginalized people who are being ignored. 

Let’s try to concretize this with an example. Start anywhere in the process (or at any level of zoom). For clarity, we will start at the macro level. We have two classes, the exploiters and the exploited. We can then cut that up, by way of intersectionality and positionality, to see that each of these groups have subgroups that have different relations to their exploitation or exploiting. This allows us to know that broadly speaking, there are contradictions and tensions within these classes that allow us to either foster more mutuality or sow more division, depending on how we approach things. Once we are aware of this, we can zoom in more to see how, within these classes, there are blocs that add more detail to those contradictions. We can see that blocs of communities are not intrinsically unified by way of their identity[19], and this keys us into the intentionality that has to go into organizing unified action, which I recommend to be based on solidarity (bottom-up) rather than unity (top-down). We can then get to the individual level, where we try to unearth desire, in the expanded sense where someone cultivates their individuality, what I call ego, or what Lorde calls the erotic. From here, we can build back up, having a meaningful and actionable awareness of social composition that tells us how the social world exists. By way of our ideology[20] and theories[21] for how the world can change, we can develop practice that materializes into that change. 

[Notes]

[1] In Marxian theories, the superstructure is everything that sits atop the economic mode of production of society. It is everything not economic, from art, to culture, to politics, etc.

[2] As in reality, notating an importance in the physical. This is true in a broad sense, but people tend to leave out things like life belief systems and human action as important unless it relates with a very clear causality to this.

[3] The “economic foundation” of society.

[4] I’m pretty skeptical of focusing on economics unless you’re literally choosing to focus on economics, mainly because of all the ideological, theoretical, methodological, and practical baggage that comes from this. 

[5] We exist in a symbiotic (meant in the neutral sense, not the colloquial, “positive”/“beneficial” sense) process with the tools we create and deploy. As we shape the tools from our ideas, the tools shape us right back, pointing us to particular potentialities. 

[6] How can primacy exist when all of the elements operate together to create emergent outcomes? The closest we get is when, by way of our commitment to relationality, we see that certain axes of oppression rear their head in a pronounced way that is still propped up by the other axes. 

[7] This, when combined with things like Eurocentricity, leads to vulgar dynamics in political struggle, where, for example, “working class” ends up meaning “White working class”, even though POC are much more emblematic of the class.

[8] If we're going to make sweeping statements about society, we should either commit to philosophical inquiry (which doesn’t have the same need for “accuracy” in the scientific sense), or we should do rigorous analysis to understand our context, using phenomenology, sociality, history, science, and culture as our “raw” data.

[9] Changes that can actually happen in the most open sense, where we are not relying on supernatural or physics-defying feats of reality-warping for our goals. It’s a combination of inspiration and analysis, where we are simultaneously thinking about the exciting futures that we want and what we can do now to get there. This is distinct from how some employ “pragmatism”, asking people to “vote harder” or whatever. This is doing things that many people may see as idealistic or impossible, but are possible in actuality, which becomes easier to see as we move away from hegemonic understandings of potentiality.

[10] This is just a funny way of saying the stuff that we’re looking at. This could be anything: “object”, “subject”, “process”, “event”, “phenomena”, and/or “thing”.

[11] The way multiple identities intersect, creating phenomenological “coordinates” that are simultaneously similar to specific variables within that coordinate, but where that specific also creates a unique phenomenological experience that can only be dictated on its own terms.

[12] Seeing how different facets of identity are constantly shifting and bleeding into one another, based on different circumstances.

[13] Identities and social relations overlap and bump up against each other on the edges, and thus are able to be recognized as distinct but interconnected. This shows up in specific practical engagements, where a specific person’s identity, when compared to “normative” modes of being (cishet, white, male), impacts their experiences.

[14] I mean this in both senses of the word: economic property, and features. 

[15] (Con)federalism is a mode of social organization that stands in opposition to centralism. While centralism concentrates power within small groups of people and organizational bodies, (con)federalism distributes power to the grassroots level, and connects laterally and “vertically” with other organizational bodies to administer coordination. 

[16] The way a class is “composed”, through whatever collective experiences or positionalities unite everyone within. It is, based on a dialectical understanding of how the Cerberus is functioning, looking to see how we can (1) see what ways we are bound to the systems at play in a practical sense, and (2) find ways to holistically sever our selves from that binding, to create new relationships with each other, based on more communistic values. 

[17] Desire here is the (spiritual, emotional, physical, rational) needs, wants, and interests of an individual or a collective, in a given moment.

[18] I’m appropriating this term from gaming communities, meant there to talk about the toolset/features that are obviously advantageous to employ, so behavior tends to shift towards using those until the game is rebalanced towards fairness. In our case, we’ll focus on how the meta indicates relationships of power-over, leading to us needing to do the “rebalancing”. 

[19] Positionality tells us the ways that solidarity can develop by keying us into where people share or diverge in experiences based on the society in which they exist...it does not show were people's desires lie

[20] The word ideology has a negative connotation…but I think it is honest and useful. I mean it in the basic sense of our foundational assumptions and commitments, that are ideally evidence tested constantly, and revised if evidence demands it, but also allow us to continue working. 

[21] Our theories are the ideas that allow us to see if our ideology is accurate; it is the way that we build upon our foundation to see if it stands up to reality.

[onsomekindofstartrek]

There's another post going around about how many innocent people would be hurt in your typical conception of a violent leftist revolution. And that's great! It's entirely true that a little interruption of our infrastructure would immediately be fatal for a lot of vulnerable people that we have a duty to. The idea that a lot of leftists have in their head of revolutionary politics is idiotic. It's literally based on Stalinist propaganda of how righteous the fucking October Revolution (and the Cuban Revolution) were.

But I feel like every time I see a version of that post, the conclusion is "therefore we should all do hyper-incremental socdem politics and hope the capitalists don't kill us all before we achieve our utopia that way."

And look, that is on the face of it less violent. I understand why the more left-leaning kind of liberal champions that model.

But it's... like, you understand that there are actual anarchist academics who have written whole bodies of work on how we ought to change society, and it doesn't fit either the "bloody all-out revolution" model or the "let's just try to vote a socdem into office in a country where that's literally inconceivable" model.

Almost all educated and intelligent leftists I know are anarcho-syndicalists. The idea is this: we aim to unionize every single workplace. We fight for the power of labor by any means available to us, from strikes to sit-ins, malicious compliance, civil disobedience, and, yes, defending ourselves and each other violently from cops, strikebreakers and scabs when it becomes necessary. We aim to make organized labor so much of a force in society that not only will the owning class be brought to the table to negotiate with us, the governments of the world will have to come to the table.

And when we've achieved that dual power, we improve the world any way we can, but we damn sure hold onto that power and make sure that we're not only preserving the infrastructure that keeps society alive, but that we are synonymous with that infrastructure.

The state will lose its sheen of benevolence when the world sees who really protects the life-saving infrastructures of the world. It is important that we never be seen as threatening those infrastructures, but instead fight in every way we can to improve them and make them more accessible and equitable. When the boss tells us to raise prices, we should have union people in every position that would be necessary for that order to be carried out, and simply not do it. They can't fire everyone.

And little by little the old state will be seen as the parasite it is, and wither away and die in a world where it is no longer necessary.

This follows in a perfect logical chain if you don't view the infrastructure of the modern world as something the bourgeoisie and the state have graciously provided to us, but as something that workers built and workers maintain, often at personal risk and with great personal sacrifice.

We already have the power, because we do all the work and make up the vast majority of humanity. We don't have to violently seize power in an apocalyptic war in the streets, we just have to learn to exercise the power we have.

And frankly, it does piss me off when I can agree with the first nine-tenths of a post about the popular conception of revolution, and then the last tenth is "therefore we should be very passive and let the capitalists have their way or actually we're the real monsters."

[nokingsonlyfooles]

It can still be okay.

*puts down the feed* Oh boy.

I used to teach preschool and this is still how I modulate my speech when I'm trying to say something complicated. I'm not trying to be too overtly patronizing, I just want to get this across when I know you're dealing with a difficult transition and it's hard to listen. That happens for adults too. If you're paying attention, you'll notice how much!

To the sensible Democrats of Tumblr, if you could find it in your hearts to, perhaps, abandon the strategy of bludgeoning people who didn't want to vote Biden into viewing Harris as equally representative of the status quo and no different, that might be more helpful than the reactions I'm seeing.

I know you don't think Democrats in power are listening to the will of the voters anymore, and all we gotta do is keep voting for them anyway - you have spent so much time and energy explaining that. I understand that's a sincere belief based on your experiences, I see how you got there, and you're very invested in it - so I can't change it. If the idea of a dramatic change that might herald more dramatic changes is too upsetting, could you keep that to yourselves? You'll manage to vote blue, I'm sure of it. You were going to do that no matter what anyway. You're cool. We're cool. You're fine.

I would really like to hang on to the hope that we can reward a big, dramatic change with some big, dramatic votes, and leverage some more daring moves and big changes. Like, you know, maybe politicians DO still listen to voters, sometimes. Don't put any energy into raining on my tentative parade.

If you could, please, stop projecting your own anxieties onto people like me and realize our anxieties are very different, and saying things that would calm you down are going to scare the crap out of me. I don't want to scare the crap out of you, because then you won't listen. Probably you won't see this anyway. But I'm not you. Biden already had you.

Harris could have me if she doesn't utterly fuck it up, because I listen and make my own decisions. The idea that change is possible is a powerful motivator, but if she repudiates that with her own mouth, I won't be able to tell myself it's just to calm you down and play politics. My brain doesn't work like yours.

I can hear you too. When a whole bunch of you get together and chorus about how you're parsing this moment, it extinguishes the faint hope I must maintain to vote like I know you want me to.

The louder you scream, "EVERYTHING IS FINE" the harder it is for me to hear "change is possible when we admit it's not fine." Try to meet me where I'm standing or, you know, there's no shame in just talking to other people who feel like you do. But, ya know, you don't need to hear "vote vote vote" do ya? Does "leftists are the problem and they suck, we need to scream at them until they fall in line" benefit you any? How about: It can still be okay. Is that any better? We disagree on how, but we both still want it to be okay.

Okay. Thanks. You're a human being with a human life and you deserve to live and be happy. Keep trying to get there. Keep growing and changing as long as you live. You'll work something out.

[oceanicmarxist]

asking u cuz u seem at least a few notches above ur average tumblr “communist”. what (if anything) works of kautsky are worth reading?

The Class Struggle, The Social Revolution & The Road to Power

Will add that Kautsky made some hard breaks with Marxism through the 1910s and 1920s (this is why Lenin and Luxemburg criticize him for), so late Kautsky and early Kautsky read like two different people sometimes.

Also recommend Mike Macnair's Revolutionary Strategy (he derives a lot of his politics from Marx, Kautsky and Lenin).

[luckystrike-x]

.

[whalesfall]

“Judy Grahn, the great lesbian poet, was once asked what she might regret about her pioneering work as artist and activist. She said she regretted all the women she had not been able to sleep with and to love. You can't help-in these days when we duck stones thrown by those who have been washed by the blood of the lamb, those without sin-being struck by the enormous generosity of Grahn's statement and by her confidence that her queer loving was a contribution she could make to the lives of oppressed women. Some might nervously titter at this, as if Grahn were mistakenly making something grand out of the trivial, narrow queer sexual connection in the context of wider political issues of violence against women, etc. But by making our queerest erotic responses visible, in sexuality and in resistance to war, racism, economic deprivation-in all aspects of the struggle for a better world- we can contribute to the liberation of everyone.”

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore (editor), That's Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, "Dykes and Fags Want Everything: Dreaming with the Gay Liberation Front with Ferd Eggan"

[falinscloaca]

why are so many of the "blogs like this one" for my own post like, joking-stalinist-urls-from-ML's-2/3rds-of-whom-reclaim-tankie-at-least-as-a-joke blogs

[rzvera]

me thinking about literally any ship from disco elysium: this too is dialectics

[magnoliamyrrh]

@73ghosts ya this is what i was going on abt, you're totally right!

the internet and the younger generations have just completely bastardized the concept of cultural appropriation. i believe it was originally developed in north america, and it was meant to critique the way in which dominant white culture would take elements from opressed cultures, without credit, claim them for themselves, and benefit off of them while still shaming said opressed culture.

ie black women were being shamed for their hairstyles which were seen as unprofessional/dirty/weird/etc and have historically been banned by white americans as a way to dehumanize africans and rupture them from an important and even spiritual part of their african heritige, but when white models would do it for modeling agencies it was cool and trendy all the sudden and they'd make money off of it. in general white dominated media&companies talking black culture and claiming it for themselves with 0 credit and making millions. another well known one, native american hollowen costumes, which turn someones sacred culture that they faught to keep alive into a stereotyped costume. another example closer to home which still makes sense would be big western clothing agencies very clearly taking designs from romanian folk clothes, and with 0 credit remaking them, branding them as african clothing, and selling them for hundreds - while much poorer peasants who make them and romanians in general get 0 credit or benefit or exposure, and while also managing to appropriate/use the "exotic" perception of africans at the same time as well

this makes sense. in a system of racial supremecy, in a country known for an incredibly ridgid racial hierarchy and harsh history, it totally makes sense as a critique and it is an important one. cultural appropriation was about taking someones culture in this hierarchy, using it to your own benefit with 0/little to no credit, while still hating said culture

this. is different from normal day to day cultural exhange. this is different from people willingly sharing their culture with others, as well as the very natural blend of cultures, ideas, customs, etc which happen when people live together for prolonged periods of time - something seen everywhere, absolutely everywhere in the old world and the indigenous americas, and frankly in the current western world as well. this is also different from cultural appreciation, a concept which seems to no longer exist frankly. its funny frankly how many times western people will be getting pissed off that someone buys clothes from another culture and wears them bc they genuinely like them, without claiming it for themselves, while people from said culture who still live in said country will say "actually we think its cool people like our clothes/things so much they want to wear them :) and its cool that theyre exposing others to our culture bc they think its beautiful :) stop being offended"

cultures are fluid, as you said. there is no such thing as pure culture, Very few things belong in actuality to one completely separate culture and group, and it is very, very normal and basically unavoidable that humans exhange culture with each other. its normal that people get influenced by the people they live around, their friends, the country they may migrate too, that trade brings parts of cultures to other places. its literally the most normal thing and weve been doing it for forever

the current-day understanding of cultural appropriation has just been bastardized to such an extent that its no longer about critiquing what it actually was, its no longer an important point of analysis and self awareness, its been taken to a ridiculous degree of performative wokeness and endless western offense about everything on this planet. the idea that Ever in Any context in Any way blending or exhanging or etc cultures is cultural appropriation, means we should twitter cancel all of humankind on this planet, for all of history in actuality. its unrealistic and useless and stupid frankly

and yea, the food thing is ridiculous. or "listening to music from other cultures is appropriation" or ive talked abt this on here before, me bringing my american ex to romania, willingly sharing my culture with her, and being asked several times by her if shes not actually appropriating my culture and its not okay,,,, like,, girl..... idk another common example someone having a cultural wedding, Asking the guests of all ethnicites to dress a certain way and participate, and the internet losing its mind. or americans seeing ppl wear/do their OWN cultuture but bc theyre so closed minded and dont know shit they get offended at them bc they think their appropriating some other culture who soley has ownership i guess (the evil eye charm thing is like, an actual common point of offense, and its so stupid bc like half the planet has had it for like hundreds of years. ive seen balkan ppl latin ppl arab ppl and others all complain abt getting this by now usually from some white american lmao rip)

we are living in an increasingly multicultural world. the last possible thing we should be doing, as far as im concerned, is all closing ourselves off from each other, never sharing anything, never exposing ourselves to anything else, and pretending we all exist in neat little separate groups with no relation to each other whatsoever. getting offended over every possible similarity but prepetually disecting all the ways were different. this..,,,, helps absolutely noone as far as i can see