There is a disease infecting the "left" in America, such as it is.
A disease of passivity.
No one will act, and by this I mean do anything besides pointless chanting and marching because they have not reached some undefined, arbitrary (and constantly shifting, in order to provide them with unlimited excuses) threshold of popular support that will, they think, magically flip a switch and allow them to do something. No change in circumstances will spur them to action. Even as their erstwhile comrades and immigrants are openly rounded up and thrown into for-profit concentration camps to be tortured and deported, the American "left", such as it is, sits on its hands and not only does nothing, but tells everyone else to do the same. Even as they watch the general public cheer and applaud the random murder of a CEO, they still believe that doing anything would be the greatest sin possible and doom their already insignificant movement to destruction. The greatest crime anyone can commit in the eyes of the western "left", such as it is, is so-called "adventurism", which is to say doing anything at all. They are so afraid of this "adventurism" that the quickest way to be ostracized from the American "left", such as it is, is to imply that anyone should DO anything.
Why has this sickness emerged? It is because the "left", such as it is, spends all their time reading theory but none of it reading history. Dialectical materialism is a tool which we use to analyze history, not a means to an end. Understanding dialectical materialism but not history is like a mechanic buying all their tools but loudly and boastfully refusing to ever work on a car for fear of getting their hands dirty. It is pointless, a waste of time, resources and energy. If anyone in the western "left" had genuine conviction in their beliefs, even a cursory reading of actual history would dissuade them of this cancerous strategy of "sit and do nothing." It takes only a basic understanding of history, analyzed through the lens of dialectical materialism, to understand why this strategy is doomed to fail.
This mindset of passivity is in error for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it ignores the class composition and material conditions of America. The ancient tomes into which the western "left", such as it is, pours all it's time and attention, were written over 100 years ago in countries with wildly different material conditions to America and the west in general. Russia and China, the origins of most of the theory that the western "left" hyper focuses on, were still struggling to escape from the yoke of feudalism and suffering from deep, existential crises, both internal and external. Even then, the revolutionary movements only gained serious traction when the old order was either seriously diminished or outright destroyed by brutal foreign invaders. In the case of Russia, this was caused by the first world war, and in China, a series of western interventions, culminating in complete anarchy and a genocidal invasion from the Japanese imperialists. This means that the majority of the people were ruthlessly oppressed, both by their own government and by external forces. This gave the people a common cause and a rallying cry, which allowed the Communists (through hard work and lots of bloody struggle) to gain mass popular support.
In America, this is not the case. There is no external army here to shatter the state, and there never will be. The two oceans provide impenetrable insulation against invasion, to such an extent that a foreign invasion is not just farfetched, it is impossible. It would be easier to eat the sun than to move millions of troops and all their supplies across the vastness of the ocean to invade America. Even a basic understanding of military strategy and history would reveal this to be true. It simply cannot be done. Protected from foreign pressure, American capital has become a complete hegemon, able to loot the entire world at will and use the superprofits generated from imperialism both to prevent any dissent by buying off the otherwise restive sections of the proletariat and to build a state apparatus that maintains an iron grip on the populace through an inescapable surveillance and propaganda panopticon. There will be and can be no mass movement in America like there was in Russia and China until America, as in, the central government, is either seriously diminished or destroyed. Since that cannot happen through an external force, it must be done internally. ONLY Americans can destroy America, and America MUST be destroyed.
This mindset is also at complete odds with history. Every successful revolutionary organization started their armed cadres and began to wage war against the state before they had mass popular support. In fact, it was mostly through their dedicated campaigns against state power that they earned their support in the first place. To give an example, the first armed cadres of the CPC were formed when the party had fewer than 5000 members. The first combat groups of the Bolsheviks were created in 1902, and in the last 20 years of the Tsarist state, over 17,000 people died from so-called "terrorist" attacks even as the parties which would later start and lead the revolution were in their infancy, if they existed at all. It was largely through armed struggle, demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice everything, including their lives, that these groups were able to recruit new members. War and politics are not just related, they are the same thing. All acts of war are political acts, and vice versa. To quote one of the pillars of Leninism, Carl von Clausewitz:
>"We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception."
Thirdly, this mindset ignores the urgency which has emerged from our present epoch of history. For the first time, humanity, not just one individual nation, faces an existential threat through Capitalism-caused climate change. If we do not act now, we will be looking at a world that has been rendered unfit for human habitation. It may already be too late to save the planet, but every day we wait, the situation becomes worse. The very nature of capitalism means that any efforts that the system takes against climate change will be meaningless and intentionally ineffective. Any nation which tries to go against the capitalist world order and chart a different, more humane and ecologically sound path will be either starved to death or violently destroyed by the United States. Even America's vassals are forced to maximize their consumption to feed the fires of global capitalism, to wit, the vast expansions of NATOs military in response to the mere existence of China means that there will be a vast increase in carbon emissions, poisoning the world that much faster. This means, therefore, that to fight against climate change in any meaningful sense, we must fight against America.
Even setting aside climate change, which would be a foolish policy, the American system still sustains itself through blood. In the 30 years after the fall of the USSR, the United States has, at an absolute minimum, murdered 15 million innocent people through economic and physical warfare. You may be questioning how this number has emerged. At least 5 million excess deaths were caused by Capitalism in Russia alone from 1991-2001. Another 5 million have died since the 2001 "Global War on Terror". Before that, America callously starved to death over 1 million Iraqis through sanctions (really, siege warfare) and killed 1.5 million in Yugoslavia. This number is both incomplete and rising every single day. It can do nothing but, as the American economy is based around the endless sale of more arms. Even the farthest "left" of America's mainstream politicians openly advocate for the maintenance and expansion of this murderous system of oppression. America cannot be reformed, it cannot be remade into something more humane, America MUST be destroyed.
Since the class composition of America precludes the formation of a national front against the government and the geography of the country precludes any foreign invasion, this means that the crisis which weakens and destroys the American state can only come from within. Since climate change cannot be fought within the same system that caused it, we do not have time to wait for the ebb and flow of empire to eventually lead to America's implosion. We must act, and we must act NOW. America MUST be destroyed, the only possible alternative is human extinction.
The ONLY left wing policy, therefore, is to physically wage war against this system, by any means, and at any cost necessary. Facing the absolute certainty of extinction from Capitalism-caused climate change, we cannot hold our own lives so dear. It is better to die now, standing on our feet for even the remotest chance at a better future than to die later, choking and coughing as our planet becomes uninhabitable. If you would sit and do nothing in the face of your extinction, then you deserve to go extinct.
>>2203539Damn, it's like you're trying to one up each other on ignorance of history.
"A few men in the right, and knowing that they are right, can overturn a mighty king. Fifty men, twenty men, in the Alleghenies would break slavery to pieces in two years."-John Brown
>>2203562>Soviets and revolutionary china had millions in slave labourThat doesn’t sound so revolutionary
>retardHmm
>>2203554The point is that you're going to see a lot more success going after a single city than an entire country of 300,000,000, especially if you're operating under the assumption that you're outnumbered by reactionaries. Or you could make temporary alliances with separatists, even if they're RW, because they're useful idiots for balkanizing the empire. You even said in a past thread that uMkhonto weSizwe won in South Africa because they targeted critical infrastructure consistently. You know who does that in the USA? 09A. Neo nazis. So that's my point. My point is if there's no communist mass movement in the USA, and you think that there can't be one because the nation is full of treatlerites, and the nation has to be destroyed first before a mass movement can be built, then you have to start small and focus on a city. When a single tooth has tooth decay, it hurts the surrounding teeth. When a single city is wrecked, it becomes a sunk cost that the nation has to invest more and more resources into securing. You could run circles around the feds for years if you remained a "small problem" in a "small area" that constantly wastes their resources, energy, and time. Rather than this grandiose BS of "just destroy the country lol"
>>2203608You're confusing strategy with theory again, but I don't think you're entirely wrong.
The goal is to force America to withdraw from it's position as global hegemon and turn inwards to fight the crisis. But there has to BE a crisis first.
>>2203611>You're confusing strategy with theory againi thought
you're entire point was that the left was too focused on theory and not enough on strategy so I made some strategic points on why your goals are too long term and not specific enough. you need a schedule and real achievable missions if your grandiose plan is to become even somewhat realistic after enough time.
>>2203535John Brown was based but his plan was a total failure and most people thought he was crazy at the time. Even a lot of abolitionists thought he had harmed their cause. He was only retroactively seen as a hero when the course of the Civil War essentially forced the northern bourgeoisie to abolish slavery to remove the initial cause of the conflict and undermine the southern economy. People say he helped "spark the Civil War" or whatever but that's just not true.
The Civil War was sparked by southern slavers chimping out at Lincoln's relatively mild anti-slavery policies and attempting to secede, and abolition wasn't even part of the northern agenda until years into the conflict. If anything John Brown is an example of why you need broad historical forces on your side, and why individual acts of armed resistance are doomed to fail without it, even when you have a sympathetic mass movement like the 1850s abolitionists. If the southern ruling class had been less hyperbolic and not been jumping at shadows they could have enjoyed slavery for decades to come like in Brazil or Cuba, and nobody would remember John Brown.
>>2203630Every day, 18 babykillers make the right decision and kill themselves.
You should make that number 19.
>>2203650Yes, I know, you're even worse. By your spelling, you're some sort of Angloid. I don't know why you think I should try to recruit you when I don't even view you as a human being.
If you want my sympathy, shoot your officers and then turn the gun on yourself.
There is nothing else you can do to redeem yourself.
>>2203654I think you'd sooner die than work with anyone.
Just a pity you won't take the easy way out. Oh well. I would say your island will be inevitably depopulated, but I don't believe any people live there.
>>2203674>I was in the military for a couple yearsThat is not great
>despite never leaving my home countryBut this does not indicate any baby killer tendencies. They could better in the insult department for sure.
>>2203631>Specific strategy is not suitable to post on this forum.No shit Evan, but you've had terrible opsec on here for years. This entire thread is terrible opsec. Why let
that stop you?
>>2203715Ahh, so it was your handler.
I find it hard to believe that anyone in your position doesn't have neo-nazi friends. I doubt you can even punch the time clock without passing by a dozen of them.
What is the point of this, anyway, do you think I'm afraid of you?
>>2203723I'm certainly not afraid of you.
I took that picture after working an overnight shift at one of my jobs and spending several months uncovering some of your friends operations in Ukraine. If you want, I can post a better one when I get home.
They've already tried to intimidate me once, and they have failed. They actually blame me for the death of one of your colleagues, a neo-nazi from the Normandie Battalion who called himself "Hrulf" despite the fact that he was a French Canadian named Jean-Francois. Sadly, I didn't kill him, but I did write an article about his handler. You might know the guy, his name is Brian Boyenger.
>>2203736I'm not trying to hide. You already know where I live, and the locks on the doors aren't very good. You're welcome to come say hello, I'd love to actually shoot a Nazi.
>>2203740It was published, actually. I should re-write that one after I read Shlomo Sand, there's a lot more I could add.
But then, you know that. I'm sure you have a big file on me already.
>>2203740>>2203736>>2203723That's not cool anon. Especially if you're trying to freak him out.
>>2203742Bro don't feel spooked. Did you post these pictures online here with your name?
>>2203869100% chance i am significantly more proletarian than you.
i'm just an actual leftist instead of a strasserite.
>A disease of passivity>Why has this sickness emerged? It is because the "left" spends all their time…WRONG ANSWER. If you spend your time victim blaming the slaves under bourgeois dictatorship, you're being willfully ignorant of the last 100 years of counter-revolutionary terrorism. There's a new book about this subject actually:
https://player.fm/series/new-books-in-critical-theory-2421454/mark-neocleous-pacification-social-war-and-the-power-of-police-verso-2025>This provocative book offers the first sustained critique of the theory and practice of pacification.>In his new book, critical theorist Mark Neocleous engages in a sustained critique of the theory and practice of pacification. Combining philosophical analysis with historical detail, Neocleous analyses the development of pacification as a key concept through which capitalist modernity has been organised, offering readers the first book that treats pacification as an important concept in the history of state power and capitalism. Neocleous’s approach is fourfold, examining pacification as social warfare carried out through the ideology of peace; as a form of social police carried out through mechanisms of security; as law and order exercised through the permanent wars of class society; and as the myriad practices of power designed to counter insurgency.>Making use of official documents of state, the writings of counterinsurgency thinkers and the ideas perpetuated by practitioners of counterrevolution, the book unravels the complex ways through which pacification generates new forms of social war and new modes of policing that reproduce capitalist order and fabricate obedient subjects.>Through expansive accounts of war and police, and engaging with a range of topics from debt to death, from stasis to civil war, and from the police kettle to the politics of fear, the book offers a provocative analysis of the ways in which state and capital combine to build a pacified social order.https://www.versobooks.com/products/3138-pacification >>2204170Yeah but double digit wage increases (plus yearly raises) plus benefits, shorter working hours, better conditions, longer vacations, earlier retirement, better pensions, more generous welfare state, etc etc. All of this shit adds up, and were this not the case then the ruling class wouldn't have spent the last 40 years trying to take these things away. The more such concessions are granted and the longer they carry on, the more they will eat into corporate profits, which will continue to dry up as a result of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. This will occur even faster if combined with successful anti-imperialist resistance abroad. As this process unfolds it will force ever increasing confrontations with capital, which in turn fuel radicalization as they become more intense (and potentially more violent), and as demands which could be granted yesterday become increasingly unattainable within the capitalist paradigm. The flip side of treats is that yesterday's luxuries become today's necessities, and the minimum standards which people will tolerate are raised. That's how every successful revolution in history unfolded, when the natural points of antagonism between the classes reached a breaking point. It's never been accomplished by a small group of radicals with no popular support somehow destroying the existing state and replacing it with nothing.
>>2204181literally none of this does anything to stop american imperialism or climate change, it just makes american workers get richer from those things.
at best you have a 50 year solution to a 5 year problem. more likely, you have no solution at all, as you have yet to mention how or why these workers would ever be inclined to destroy the system which sustains them.
>>2204184>at best you have a 50 year solution to a 5 year problemDo you unironically believe that a tiny handful of insurgents could bring the US government down and prevent the old order from reasserting itself within 5 years? This last part is a big question mark for me. Even if you could snap your fingers and have every US military officer, Wall Street executive, and Washington politician die overnight, all that creates is a power vacuum. If there's nothing to fill it then the bourgeoisie will simply regroup and reassert themselves.
>as you have yet to mention how or why these workers would ever be inclined to destroy the system which sustains themBecause it can't sustain them, that's the whole point. The rate of profit falls, whatever concessions were granted before end up on the chopping block, holding onto them or even pushing for more becomes a natural site of struggle. Since this struggle can no longer end in a mutually acceptable social democratic compromise, it has a radicalizing effect and creates the material basis for a revolutionary movement.
>>2204190>Because it can't sustain them, that's the whole point. The rate of profit falls, whatever concessions were granted before end up on the chopping block, holding onto them or even pushing for more becomes a natural site of struggle. Since this struggle can no longer end in a mutually acceptable social democratic compromise, it has a radicalizing effect and creates the material basis for a revolutionary movement.the system has sustained a petty-bourgeois (aka "Middle class") majority for over 200 years already it can continue to do so. This is literally what the American system was built to do. There is no class basis for a mass movement in America and there never has been.
>Do you unironically believe that a tiny handful of insurgents could bring the US government down and prevent the old order from reasserting itself within 5 years? This last part is a big question mark for me. Even if you could snap your fingers and have every US military officer, Wall Street executive, and Washington politician die overnight, all that creates is a power vacuum. If there's nothing to fill it then the bourgeoisie will simply regroup and reassert themselves.The goal is to create a crisis that forces them to turn inward and withdraw from their position as global hegemon. Nothing else matters.
>>2204190"Hitler's popular support derived from yet another group whose roots-and outlook-were fixed in the past. It consisted, above all, of small but independent peasants, artisans, and shopkeepers. This composite lower middle class, which also included salaried white collar workers, felt intensely threatened by both organized capitalism and organized Marxism. Large sectors of Germany's Mitte/stand were nostalgic for other times, to which they hoped to return. The petty bourgeoisie, always anxious about their status, and according to Bloch filled with an "amorphous pent-up fury," became the reserve army of resistance to change. While this fury was latent in periods of normalcy, it threatened to erupt in times of crisis, fueled by a burning passion for "duty, Bildung, status, … home, soil, and Volk. "
>>2204194>the system has sustained a petty-bourgeois (aka "Middle class") majority for over 200 years First off, petty-bourgeois =/= middle class. Even during the height of the postwar compromise the majority of middle income people were still workers, which was only made possible by a robust labour movement. Second, you're just objectively wrong that such people constituted a majority of the American population for most of US history. Prior to the mid 20th century most people were poor proles living and working in conditions not unlike third world sweatshops (at least since the industrial revolution took hold in America), and that proportion has been growing continuously again since the advent of neoliberalism. Again, unless you think that capitalism can sustain constant growth of profits indefinitely then you must admit that at some point it will have to cannibalize whatever concessions it has granted to the workers.
> This is literally what the American system was built to doNo, like all capitalist systems it was built to generate as much profits for the bourgeoisie as possible.
>The goal is to create a crisis that forces them to turn inward and withdraw from their position as global hegemonYeah and instigating class conflict at home is a way to do that. The more intense the antagonisms between the domestic workers and bourgeoisie, the less resources will be available to wage imperialist adventures abroad. Never mind the fact that more money spent on healthcare and education means less on security (hence why EU capitalists are now openly saying that they will destroy the remainder of the welfare state to fund rearmament), but more resources spent containing unrest domestically means less available to deploy internationally. Additionally, the more restive the population already is at home, the less willing they will be to staff the ranks of the imperialist army or accept any burdens of conflict. Not only this, but the inevitable effect of an inwards turn even absent any worker militancy at home will be to supplant imperialist superprofits with intensified exploitation of domestic workers. When that happens its much better to have an already robust labour movement rather than a completely disorganized working class.
>It consisted, above all, of small but independent peasants, artisans, and shopkeepers. This composite lower middle class, which also included salaried white collar workersThese people are not the majority in America.
>>2204289he spent years teaching people how to use lasers as weapons, posting infographics and short videos he made, and linking his schizo youtube channel, and when he finally went crazy and killed someone, it wasn't with a lazer, but just with a regular old pistol.
> I think he might've fascist or some kind of rightoidHe was. He was always posting on /pol/ and only came to leftypol when he got banned from 4chan. He would talk about building special lazers that would make "black skin" explode
The great irony of the labour aristocracy thesis is that it was the height of the labour aristocracy which coincided with a high point of working class consciousness and militancy in the first world, shit like May 68, the BPP, anti-Vietnam war movement, RAF, and the Years of Lead, etc. Honestly the more I think about it the more it seems like the labour aristocracy is a side effect of a high degree of working class power. It does play the role Lenin described in preventing this from turning into revolution and of course should be combatted on this basis. Perhaps its role in this was even decisive (in some cases like Germany in 1919 I think we can say this with confidence. But at the same time, it really only comes into existence when class consciousness and organization have already been raised to a certain level.
Formally speaking, what you see today in America isn't a labour aristocracy in the way Lenin used it, since that by definition can only exist in the context of a large collaborationist labour movement and America lacks even that. This is a country with only a 10% unionization rate ffs. What the first world proletariat struggles with today is something else entirely, which is chronic apathy and atomization. I don't think it's so much that people are too comfortable and don't want change, but that they have no way of conceiving how to go about getting it. In terms of the main obstacles they face, I honestly think they have more in common with Russian proles in the 90s trying in vain to resuscitate the USSR than American proles in the 50s who were set for life working in a steel mill. So maybe it's not that people are wrong about the labour aristocracy and its role in preserving bourgeois rule in a previous era, but that they're misapplying this to the current era.
>>2203509I agree with the general sentiment OP, specially the adventurism part. It seems to me that anything that has no guaranteed success rate is considered adventurism. But on the face of human extinction, couldn't one argue that anything is acceptable, even if it doesn't work? According to these people calling everything adventurism, then everything in the past fits this description: Rosa Luxembourg and the Spartans, Mahkno, Catalonia, the Guatemalan and Salvadorian peasants, etc. What determines the lines between adventurism and rational careful action?
As
>>2203590 says, effective action is met with prison or death. Still, we should support any action that doesn't involve secure death or imprisonment or hurting innocent people, rather than judging it as adventurism.
In my opinion, the attitude we should take is that of an enthusiast who is learning a new passion, such as drawing or writing. In the process, the artist learns and discovers not only about their task but also about themselves, leading him to new paths and leads. This can only be accomplished through action, and no amount of meditation or theory will provide the same experience.
>>2204222>>2204325So your best case scenario is that MAYBE in 50 years, you have 20% of America in explicitly class collaborationist unions that exist specifically to PREVENT a revolution from ever happening in America.
I'm sorry, but that is worse than doing nothing. You may as well just kill yourself now, because that has the exact same chance of succeeding.
I can't decide if this is just mindless book worship or active strasserism.
>>2204472Suicide bomb Buckingham palace.
>>2205051What the marx did you just marxing say about me, you little strasserite? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the cheka, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on the treatlerite burgerreich, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire red army. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the marx out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my marxing words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, marxer. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USSR and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're marxing dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the red army and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your strasserite tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're marxing dead, kiddo.
>>2205231Once again, the only examples you have to cite are 100 year old struggles from a time when the material conditions were radically different.
You are nowhere near Blair Mountain. You would call Blair Mountain adventurism.
If you were putting weapons in the hands of union workers I'd be on your side, but you aren't, you won't, and you oppose every effort to.
>>2205243When did I encourage that? I am encouraging the formation of an army, not individual action.
"Adventurism" does not exist and it is just a slur from inactivists. It's just the left wing version of the world "terrorism", a meaningless platitude that is designed to denigrate people's struggle.
>>2205297The Bolsheviks had been actively fighting the state for over a decade at this point.
Once again, you worship theory but have never read history. You use these ancient tomes not as a manual for action, but an excuse for inaction.
>>2205298Yes, I encourage every British "person" to suicide bomb something.
>>2205304The George Floyd uprisings also failed because inactivists like you refused to take the lead and start attacking the state in an organized fashion, you were content to let the anarchists do things as you did exactly what you always do, sat and did nothing.
>>2205319Lenin, who was actively operating a "terrorist" group, which you would have called "adventurist", at the time.
>>2205320Good thing he had friends who were willing to start the revolution instead of sitting and doing nothing, then.
>>2204963What about movements like the civil rights movement or the Black Panthers?
The State straight up killed Fred Hampton and MLK. What about the peasants in El Salvador and Guatemala who were simply trying to improve their lives? There were guerrillas yes, but the atrocities were commited mainly against the civilian population.
What is the response/solution to these cases? Fred Hamtpon wasnt adventurist
>>2205814>But isn't building a mass social base what we want?Yes, but OP is telling us not to bother.
>If that's impossible right now, then what can we do?It is possible, it's just a slow process that requires a lot of tedious and thankless work.
>>2205797You will never have majority support in America and you don't need it. Hezbollah only has about 20% of Lebanon behind them and they have accomplished more than every western leftist ever combined.
At best your strategy will.leave you with a handful of questionably dedicated followers who are ready to do nothing when capitalism-caused climate change and the escalation of American fascism means we must act urgently.
This is what you nerds fail to understand because it wasn't in the ancient tomes you hyper focus on. We do not have a generation to do this. We don't have fifty years to slowly build a movement the old fashioned way. Humanity is facing an existential threat and your only possible solution is to sit and read a book.
You may as well just give up and go over to the right, because by doing nothing you are helping them.
>>2205993Is Lebanon socialist? Have they defeated Zionist aggression? Is America the same as Lebanon? You know absolutely nothing that you're talking about. You keep screaming at people to "do something" yet when people try doing something that isn't an immediate suicidal martyrdom you get pissy and call us Strasserites. Meanwhile you're sitting on your ass while there's a factory right where you live that produces weapons that you yourself have said is completely unguarded and you have yet to so much as sabotage it.
Yes, American imperialism will be dismantled, communism will be brought to these lands, but it will be done through mass action in spite of psychopaths like yourself and not because of it.
>>2205993>Hezbollah only has about 20% of Lebanon behind them 20% of the population is still a mass movement. Its precisely their support from such a significant segment of the population that makes Hezbollah so resilient and effective.
>We do not have a generation to do this.You understand that just saying this doesn't do away with the necessity of a strong political foundation right? A car won't drive without wheels, no matter how urgently you need to reach your destination. It's simply a matter of cold hard facts that you can never pose a serious threat to a government or the social forces it represents without a mass movement (which is not the same thing as a majority) behind you.
>>2206000Lmao you will do nothing. Be honest with yourself for once. You will do nothing. You have no strategy, you just hyperfixate on ancient tomes written in epochs of history that ended before your parents were born. The world will burn around you and the scant remnants of the left will be thrown in camps and you will do nothing.
Stop lying to yourself.
>>2206006How did Hezbollah earn that 20% of popular support? It was not by sitting and doing nothing. It was through taking up arms and actively fighting against the Zionists. Your strategy has no support and never will, because your strategy is doing nothing. No one will support nothing.
>>2206031>It was through taking up arms and actively fighting against the Zionists. In part, but it was formed in 1982 during an Israeli occupation of Lebanon, obviously a situation where armed resistance is going to help generate popular support. However they did a lot more than just fight the Israelis, they also set up social services and basic public functions. They operate schools, fund infrastructure projects, resolve disputes, etc. All of this, including armed resistance to Zionism, was simply them locating the natural sites of social struggle between their chosen base (Lebanese Shias) and other forces, and intervening on the side of that base. The correctly located where the existing political energy was and worked to give it focus and direction. This *is* the strategy I'm proposing, but in the US there isn't nearly as much appetite for armed struggle (not that unarmed =/= nonviolent) amongst the people we're trying to reach, and the state we're fighting against is much stronger. In short, the conditions are different, and if we apply the recipe for Hezbollah's success to America (i.e. identify the organic sites of struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie, intervene on behalf of the former, give the latent political energy structure and direction) then what would that look like? Well workers are struggling with low wages, so that means organizing workplaces. They're struggling with high housing costs, that means organizing tenant's unions. They're struggling to afford healthcare, that means fighting for socialized medicine. Just naming a few examples. In other words, in means doing all these things and waging all these struggles that OP declares to be useless, to be "Strasserist" etc.
>>2206072No, because the vast majority of Americans support this system despite realizing what it does. No action taken against it will ever have popular support. However, that can't matter. America MUST be destroyed. There is no other way to preserve human civilization.
This is the whole point. You are only focused on and only care about Americans, a tiny minority of the human population. You hyper focus on them and their needs despite the fact that they are diametrically opposed to the needs of 95% of humanity. Everything that is good for America is bad for humanity. America MUST be destroyed. There is a absolutely no other option.
>>2203869One of my Russian friends once compared these people to Navalny supporters.
>>2204360>The great irony of the labour aristocracy thesis is that it was the height of the labour aristocracy which coincided with a high point of working class consciousness and militancy in the first world, shit like May 68, the BPP, anti-Vietnam war movement, RAF, and the Years of Lead, etc.It's very
interesting how proletarian organization against the Vietnam War has been utterly wiped from history while petit-bougeois academics and activists (Many of whom became Third-way liberals by the 1990s) became the face of the Left. In fact, the only time you hear of workers in histories of that era are the Hard Hat Riots. Kind of like this
odd coincidence how Settlers (Which villifies the American labor movement as racists) came out at the same time as the Reagan Administration's attacks on organized labor.
>>2205449It would have resulted in the declaration of martial law and the Proud Boys and other fascist goons would have been allowed to fire AR-15s into crowds of protestors. But go ahead and pick up the bait bricks.
>>2206282My analysis of American workers is indisputable and correct. Yet, we still have to destroy America. There is no other option. This is the hand that reality has dealt to us and so we must act with what we have, not what we want.
>>2206296Except America is much worse than Klendathu.
>>2203509Didn’t read, agree with the title, but why do people like you always stop at “America”, implicitly claiming capitalism would be okay without the mutt race polluting it?
Why should any prole, even American proles, die for the benefit of the bourgeoisie?
>>2208020Use corked 0.75L bottles filled 2/3s with petrol.
Use bigger bottles. add oil and a thickener.
>>2206031Why do socialists worship anti-communist butchers of the proletariat like Hezbollah instead of any other group or faction you can think of?
How can you call anyone else a strasserite when you get hard for bitter enemies of the working class solely because you really are a sad cunt shot through with white guilt that cheerleads for populist reactoids so long as they fight other populist reactoids in between slaughtering proletarians?
Unique IPs: 63