[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Not reporting is bourgeois


File: 1748701312341.jpeg (406.68 KB, 614x821, IMG_2317.jpeg)

 

To the idealists on this site, violence does work. Despite how hard it is to believe this, African Americans have become the least likely people to experience police violence within the United States. Why? The reasons are complicated, but it boils down to face saving on the part of the us police force.
For those not aware of this, the US police force has faced legitimized defunding, riots, and has been blamed directly for insinuating dozens of race riots for the past century that have left upwards of hundreds of people dead. Regardless of your stance on American race politics and police violence, the US police force is ultimately blamed for most of this violence specifically because it’s the direct cause for most of this oddly specific form of it. The US federal government overtime grew increasingly intolerant of the US police force’s actions specifically because that behaviour of that institution does legitimately put the national security of the country as a whole st risk, and the US federal government cannot risk any more instances of mass violence breaking out in a time where the USA is weaker politically than ever. The fact that a single cop fucking up badly with showing restraint towards black Americans is enough to send the entire country in a frenzy is enough of a scare to the US federal government to mandate cops to just “fuck off and leave them be.”
Since the George Floyd riots, the US police force has seen funding cuts, some divisions entirely defunded, and many more reorganized specifically to avoid insinuating any more violence that could jeapordize the safety of the country.

Does this mean that the US police force has completely professionalized and stopped engaging in police brutality? No. Does this mean that us cops have suddenly become less racist? Sort of, but no. Does this mean that African Americans stopped being victims of police violence? To an extent, but a better answer is simply much less than before. And there’s a lesson to all of this.

Beating and terrorizing the ever loving shit out of people for messing with your life works.

>does nothing

>>2290381
>upwards of hundreds
so would that be thousands?

>>2290403
No, the deadliest riot only left around 1000 casualties

>>2290405
It was the LA riots. Here’s the documentary freely available

>>2290405
>around 1000
why not just say that to begin with

>>2290415
Because most riots left dozens to upwards of hundreds of casualties. LA was uniquely shitty

>>2290407
That is only number 5.

https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2018/05/02/10_deadliest_riots_in_us_history_302.html

>1. Manhattan, July 13-16, 1863. The Draft Riots. This explosion of anger at being conscripted into the Union army quickly turned racist, as immigrants from Ireland began attacking blacks and their property, including an orphanage for black children. The official number of dead is either 119 or 120. The Draft Riots are so-called because the Union army began conscripting citizens for military service, but if a payment of $300 could be made (worth about $9,000 now), then conscription could be avoided. Manhattan’s wealthy could buy their way out of military service, while the city’s poorer immigrant population, mostly from Ireland, could not. The turn from the draft to African-Americans is attributed to resentment and fear on the part of the immigrant community. Manhattan’s black community virtually disappeared after the riot.

>>2290424
The fuck. Attacking children over conscription to prove how manly you are?

no sources except vibes, fuck off radlib
>Since the George Floyd riots, the US police force has seen funding cuts, some divisions entirely defunded, and many more reorganized specifically to avoid insinuating any more violence that could jeapordize the safety of the country.
<she doesn't know about neoliberalism demolishing the state for privatization
child's view on economics, read Marx and learn historical materialism
> Regardless of your stance on American race politics and police violence, the US police force is ultimately blamed
Zionist settlers crying about the IDF:

>>2290381
Posting about violence isn't the same as enacting it and doesn't make you the slightest bit more radical than a lib pacifist who only posts about his preferred tactics. Politics is what you do, not what you say. Terror isn't immoral because morality doesn't exist but that's also why it's retarded to go back and forth about whether it's justified. The single thing that matters is if it works. If your goal is socialist revolution then neither undirected rioting nor lone wolf terror work.

>>2290472
Aren’t you types the fuckers constantly parading about neoliberals requiring a police state to maintain any actual control over the societies they leech off of

>>2290480
Luigi alone forced united health to reorganize itself and managed to scare the entirety of the US ruling class in a day actually and that was recent.

File: 1748715117887.png (343.64 KB, 523x338, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2290381

Individual Acts
1933

Many divergent positions have been taken up on the burning of the Reichstag by Van Der Lubbe. In the organs of the communist left (Spartacus, Radencommunist) it was approved as the act of a revolutionary communist. To approve and applaud such an act means calling for it to be repeated. That's why it's important to understand what use it had.

Its only meaning could be to hit, to weaken, the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. There can be no question of this here. The bourgeoisie hasn't been at all hurt by the burning of the Reichstag. Its rule hasn't in any way been weakened. On the contrary, the government has seized the opportunity to strengthen considerably its terror against the workers movement. The ultimate consequences of this have yet to be appreciated.

But even if such an act really did hit or weaken the bourgeoisie, the only consequence of this would be to encourage the workers to believe that such individual acts could liberate them. The great truth that they have to learn, that only the mass action of the entire working class can defeat the bourgeoisie, this basic truth of revolutionary communism, would be obscured from them. It would lead them away from autonomous class action. Instead of concentrating all their forces on propaganda within the working masses revolutionary minorities would exhaust their energies in individual acts which, even when carried out by a large and dedicated group, would in no way shake the domination of the ruling class. With its considerable auxiliary forces, the bourgeoisie could easily master such a group. There has rarely been a minority group which carried out such actions with the devotion, sacrifice and energy of the Russian nihilists half-a-century ago. At certain moments it even seemed that, through a series of well-organized individual assassinations, they would succeed in overthrowing Tsarism. But a French policeman, called in to take over the anti-terrorist struggle in place of the incompetent Russian police, succeeded with his Western energy and organization to annihilate nihilism in a few years. It was only afterwards, with the development of the mass movement, that Tsarism was overthrown.

But doesn't such an act have a value as a demonstration against the abject electoralism which serves to derail the workers' struggles? A demonstration has value if it convinces people by giving an impression of strength, or if it develops consciousness. But are we really to believe that a worker who thinks he's defending his interests by voting social democrat or Communist is going to start doubting this because the Reichstag is burned down? All this is completely derisory compared to what the bourgeoisie itself does to undermine the workers' illusions—rendering the Reichstag completely impotent, dissolving it or removing it from the decision-making process.

Some German comrades have said that the act could only be positive because it would strike a blow at the workers' confidence in parliamentarism. Doubtless. But we can still ask whether this is looking at things in a rather simplistic way. Democratic illusions would only be introduced from another source. Where there's no right to vote, where parliament is impotent, the conquest of "real democracy" is put forward and the workers imagine that this is the only thing to fight for. In fact, systematic propaganda which uses each event to develop an understanding of the real meaning of parliament and the class struggle can never be side-stepped and is always the essential thing.

Can't individual acts be the signal which sets in motion a mass struggle by giving a radical example? It's a well known fact in history that the action of an individual in moments of tension can act as a spark to a powder keg. But the proletarian revolution has nothing in common with the explosion of a powder keg. Even if the Communist Party is trying to convince itself and everyone else that the revolution can break out at any moment, we know that the proletariat still has to form itself for new mass combats. These sorts of ideas reveal a certain bourgeois romanticism. In past bourgeois revolutions, the rising bourgeoisie, and behind it the people, were confronted with the personalities of sovereigns and their arbitrary oppression. An assassination of a king or a minister could be a signal for a revolt. The idea that in the present period an individual act could set the masses in movement is based on the bourgeois concept of the "chief", not an elected party leader, but a self-appointed chief, whose action mobilizes the passive masses. The proletarian revolution has nothing to do with this out-dated romanticism of the chief. All initiative has to come from the class, pushed forward by massive social forces.

But, after all, the masses are made up of individuals and mass actions contain a whole number of individual actions. Of course, and here we come to the real value of individual acts. Separated from mass action, the act of an individual who thinks he can accomplish great things on his own is useless. But as part of a mass movement, it's of the greatest importance. The class in struggle isn't a regiment of identical puppets marching in step and accomplishing great things through the blind force of its own movement. It is on the contrary a mass of multiple personalities, pushed forward by the same will, supporting itself, exhorting itself, giving itself courage. The irresistible strength of such a movement is based on many different strengths all converging towards the same goal. In this context, the most audacious bravery can express itself in individual acts of courage, since it is the clear understanding of all the others which directs these acts towards a real goal, so that the fruits of such acts aren't lost. In an ascending movement, this interaction of strengths and acts is of the greatest value, when it's directed by a clear understanding by the workers about what needs to be done and about how to develop their combativity. But in these cases, it takes a lot more tenacity, audaciousness and courage than it takes to burn a parliament!

>>2290698
I’m pretty sure a race riot wouldn’t register as an “individual act” you twat

>>2290684
Lone wolf and small cell terrorism can frighten the bourgeoisie into temporarily giving the working class some concessions. The same thing happened in Italy because of the Red Brigades. Temporary concessions are not socialist revolutions. People have been trying propaganda of the deed for almost 150 years and it never works.

>>2290731
>People have been trying propaganda of the deed for almost 150 years and it never works.
>Lone wolf and small cell terrorism can frighten the bourgeoisie into temporarily giving the working class some concessions
By your logic it works, just not “fully and permanently changing society on a societal level” works.

>>2290934
If your goal is succdem reforms it can work partially and temporarily. If your goal is helping the bourgeoisie justify suppressing proletarians before they're mature enough to handle that it can also work. If your goal is being a one man spark that lights the revolution, which is how potd is usually understood and promoted by people who fall for it, then you are an idealist and it cannot work. If your goal is to satisfy some moral impulse then you are an idealist.


Unique IPs: 9

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]