For many Jews, Zionism signifies a connection to Israel. But a large number of student protesters see the violence in Gaza as a logical conclusion of the late 19th century ideology...
“The painful truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades – a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews – has failed,” Peter Beinart wrote in 2020. “It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish–Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish–Palestinian equality.”
After reading this guy’s article it would be nice to see his current views given all that’s happened since 2020. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was basing his views on the political reality in Israel at the time. It seems unfortunate that the Guardian felt the need to use an article from four years ago to assert what should be done now with the current political reality in Israel in 2024.
In his article from 2020, he seems to have come to the conclusion that a multi-ethnic/multi-racial/multi-cultural/secular nation state is how Palestinians and Jews would be safe. I would say this is true about any ethnic, racial, cultural, or religious group. Societies that include and protect the rights of all the people that live there is essential for the safety of all the people who live there. This is not in any way a zionist idea.
An inclusive, multi-ethnic state for Palestinians and Jews already living there should have been the goal from the beginning as opposed to an ethno-state for Jews. And colonization by foreign Jews should not have happened. In theory, the modern day Palestine and Israel could be one inclusive state or two separate inclusive states. The reason that we need two states right now, is that Israel is currently controlled by a far-right, fascist government. The current fascist government isn’t going to accept the current nation state of Israel being dissolved into a joint Palestinian-Israeli state.
In the absence of the ability to control Israel’s existence or actions, the UN needs to give Palestine full membership now. To make that happen, the US needs to stop waiting for Israel agree to allow Palestine to exist. The US needs to recognize Palestine’s current borders and stop using its veto to block the UN resolution. Israel is not negotiating in good faith right now and they will not do so as long as the government is controlled by fascists. The alternative is to allow the continued annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. Once annexation of a country is complete it becomes much easier for fascists to corral the out-group into death camps. At which point, only military intervention could help the Palestinians.
If people in Israel are motivated by the idea for a new joint Palestinian-Israeli state then by all means, encourage them to vote out the fascists in favor of candidates that will pursue this new nation state. However, I think the Palestinians deserve a solution now, that does not depend on Israelis wanting to dissolve their current nation state. Especially when Israelis voted in the current fascist government since he wrote his article and zionists still seem fixated on the notion that they need an ethno-state to be safe. Even as Israel is making all Jews less safe by committing genocide against the Palestinians. I think Palestinians gaining full control of their territory now, would not be a detriment to the creation of a joint state later. Palestinians shouldn’t have to wait for Israelis to embrace a joint state in order to enjoy human rights.
It happened to me because we were discussing the Nazi’s views on racial hierarchy in sophomore honors history class and I’m ethnically Jewish. It was a surreal experience.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn’t, what Socialism is and isn’t, and what Social Democracy is and isn’t. Social Democracy isn’t Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Social democracy is a form a socialism. Social democrats in Nordic Countries apparently are aligning themselves with groups on the right. I am saying we need to move to socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. I’m very much saying we need workers to own corporations as part of social democracy.
What form of Democracy? In what metric is it the most effective? The US isn’t particularly democratic, but absolutely helps the ruling class.
The kinds that exist currently. Compared to all other forms of governments that exist currently. Yes US democracy is flawed. Yes, the owner class benefits immensely from our current liberal democracies.
Please explain why it is a “flaw” in Socialist theory, and not just something you dislike. Neoliberalism does not make people susceptible to fascism, crumbling Capitalism does that. People have a knee-jerk reaction to Socialism in the US because they are a part of the Labor Aristocracy, a status that would not change even if the US became a Social Democracy.
You said it yourself, you have also experienced people saying “socialism doesn’t work”. There is a reason for that and it’s not that people are more susceptible to socialist ideas. I don’t like that reality either, but it is reality as we have observed it. It directly contradicts socialist theory. If socialist theory was correct people would respond with “tell me more” when they hear socialism.
People have a knee-jerk reaction to socialism because they know it involves systemic change and wealth redistribution. As part of living in neoliberalism, people are told they are living at the end of history. That change comes in incremental steps and our institutions are fundamentally good and just need good people in charge of them. If anyone is struggling, it’s an issue of personal responsibility. And that wealth redistribution is theft. That they would be denied having wealth and the little wealth that they have would be taken from them. When in fact capitalism is inherently about wealth extraction. We would all be making more if owned the companies we worked for instead of them being privately owned or owned by share holders.
To Republican evangelicals who don’t know better, Trump is that good man who is going to make a supposedly good system work for them. They think if he can just be allowed ‘to do what has to be done’ removing the people who make up the out-groups they’ve been told to hate, things will get better for them. This is of course a fascist lie. We have to work to correct this.
I understand that you like to read theory, I am just curious why you are intent on rejecting all of it in favor of your personal vibes. Have you read any Anarchist or Marxist theory, or just liberal theory?
I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and Zimmerman. I have not read the Anarchist and Marxist theory that you are referring to. I think I’ve read some stuff on the anarchist library before though. I know enough about political science, history, and current events to have informed opinions on current political and economic issues. Gatekeeping is counterproductive. edit: typo
Alright. I still think what we believe is not in conflict with each other. But I am going to agree to disagree on what we should do about the election.
The social democracy I am describing in my arguments would do away with capitalism but not market economies. The fact this doesn’t exist yet or isn’t in the theory you have read about social democracy isn’t relevant. The US has never had true majority rule. Our democracy overrepresents some people and thus underrepresents others. This must be fixed. The US is still fundamentally a democracy despite its flaws. That’s why the fascists want to do away with our democracy, so they can have total power, as just being overrepresented is insufficient for their aims.
To be clear, I’m using this meme to address ethical concerns I see people have with voting. Namely that we should ignore those concerns. I think we should vote for Biden in 2024.
I saw your comment further down and I wanted to address any potential confusion where it can be seen. I think we fundamentally agree that people should vote.
But the sonic meme says voting is unethical
No, just that there are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. For example, abstaining from voting is a choice even if it’s not voting. Voting for the candidates, not just the president, that will result in the least amount of harm to people is what is optimal. People use ethical concerns as a reason to not vote, but no matter what a person chooses, even the least bad choice is still unethical. Therefore these ethical concerns should not weigh into our decision making process.
This is comparable to no ethical consumption under capitalism. Steve Shives made a good example in his video on Don’t Look Up, so I’m going to steal it here. We shouldn’t dismiss Hollywood out of hand for making movies like Don’t Look Up even though everyone who works in the film industry benefits from capitalism in unethical ways. Even though it is true that they benefit in unethical ways, this line of reasoning would silence everyone. We all benefit in unethical ways from capitalism. It’s the nature of living in a capitalist system that we cannot escape as long as we live under capitalism. Even the least bad consumption is still unethical. So these ethical concerns shouldn’t weigh into our criticism of a movie like Don’t Look Up.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. There are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. So, these ethical concerns should not weigh into our criticism of capitalism or our decisions about who to vote for. We should vote even if the choice of who we vote for isn’t ethical. The goal should be to reduce the most harm to people.
I’m describing what I’m describing. This is social democracy as I see it. I am arguing workers owning companies is not at odds with social democracy and is a policy that should be pursued as part of such a system.
No, people have been trying to fix US democracy to be more inclusive for centuries. Black men got the right to vote in 1870. But of course people of color are still facing voter suppression to this day. Woman got the right to vote in 1919. People fought for these rights. We need to keep fighting until majority rule is established in the United States. Then we will need to fight to keep it that way. I’ll name a few things that we need to do, but this is not a comprehensive list. We need to abolish the electoral college, and make both the House of Representatives and Senate proportional to the population. The House of Representatives is currently capped at 435. And every state in the union needs to agree to change the Senate to be reflective of the population from the current two senators per state. As long as our democracy has these and other flaws fascists and corporations alike are going to have undue leverage over our democracy.
I would argue the majority of what I argue for is social democracy. The fact I’m arguing for workers owning their companies does not exclude the system I’m arguing for from being social democracy. I want a market economy, I just want the workers to own that market economy.
No, what form of Democracy, and by what metrics? Why do you say bourgeois dictatorships are better?
Again review the countries that exist. Google maps exists. Also call them what they are, liberal democracies, thank you. People fought hard for those democracies.
Again, no. You are entirely missing the point. People will not be swayed by learning Socialism is better, without material conditions matching said ideas.
No, these martial conditions, under neoliberalism, despite matching the material conditions of a worker class oppressed by an owner class, make it harder to learn that Socialism is better. This is why it’s hard to even engage people about Socialism. This is the specific part of Marxist theory we are disagreeing about by the way, not Marxist theory in general. Neoliberalism makes it much harder for us to engage people with socialist ideas. Where as people are primed for fascist ideas. This is the problem we face that exists in the modern day. It started with Thacher in 1979 in the UK and Regan in 1980 in the US so as interesting as the Owenites are, they are not relevant.
does not make you equipped…I’m not even gatekeeping,
These statements contradict each other. It’s not for you to decide what makes someone qualified to discuss anything. To be clear, I do not have to have read all the theory you have to discuss this topic.
We are discussing workers owning the companies they work for. I don’t need to explain every other idea I hold because the one being discussed could fit in another box. My point is that workers owning the companies they work for fits into social democracy. Ideas do not respect your rigid categorizations. And this splitting hairs is effectively a moot point.
Please understand that what you call “Social Democracy” is Market Socialism. If you use the term “Market Socialism,” everyone will understand what you are talking about.
I am talking about social democracy. I will explain what I mean.
If you use “Social Democracy,” everyone will understand it as “Capitalism with robust safety nets.” These terms have long and historied uses, and that’s why using them correctly is the best way to talk to people. Not to reinvent terms.
I am not reinventing a term. I am including the idea, that workers should own the corporations they work for, in social democracy. I am not the only or first person to do this. This does not stop what I am advocating for being social democracy. Over focusing on definitions is not an effective strategy for arguments.
Black Americans did not recieve the right to vote electorally, but after violent struggle and civil unrest. My broader point is that enacting change is not truly possible electorally, it must come from outside pressure.
Women got the right to vote with mass civil unrest.
As I said in my argument, they had to fight for those rights. But people who had the right to vote still had to vote. We need direct action and civil disobedience, but if people don’t vote then all that goes to waste.
Abolishing the electoral college? Great. Making democracy more direct? Great. How do you practically see getting this accomplished? This is the crux of my point. Theory is nothing without practice, and practice is nothing without theory. Right now, you are arguing for utopianism, something that has failed numerous times. You cannot simply ask the ruling class to do better.
With direct action, civil disobedience, and voting. I am arguing for social democracy. A set of ideas and policies that includes socialism and democracy.
That is why theory is important! It guides your practice and makes it sharper.
Theory is the backbone of practical application. We need theory, but we have to be willing to point out when something is wrong with the theory.
My point is that we need to vote in record numbers to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. So we need to address concerns people have with voting. A major concern I see on the internet are ethical concerns. That’s why it’s important to tell people there are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. The goal must be to reduce harm by voting for the candidate that does the least harm.
Social democracy combines the inclusive economic institution of socialism with the inclusive political institution of democracy. In short people have a say in both their economy and government. Listing things off the top of my head that a social democracy should include are things like health care paid for by the government, a government run retirement program like social security, food stamps provided by the government, government housing, government maintained public drinking fountains, government provided internet access. If something is needed routinely by people in order to survive then the government should have a hand in making sure that they get that thing. Market economies by default fire the poorest customer in pursuit of profit. It isn’t profitable to house everyone, so not everyone gets a roof over their head, but everyone needs shelter in order to live.
In the spirit of inclusive economic and political institution alone, I would say workers owning the companies they work for is consistent with social democracy. Corporations will still be pursing the profit motive. The difference is that the C-staff will beholden to make profit for the workers and not the share holders. The system is still reliant on a welfare state to avoid people falling through the cracks and make sure everyone gets their basic necessities. I’m sure some social democrats would say we don’t have to go this far and that a mixed economy is sufficient. I have come to the opinion that we do need to go farther in this specific regard. As long as the owner class exists, even with sufficient wealth distribution, which is still needed, they will be incentivized to overthrow democracy. By having one class of people, workers, there is no class with the incentive to overturn democracy for profit. We need to have a real say in our place of work, as it has a tremendous impact on our lives and the best way to do that is for workers to own it.
No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.
Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, ‘an immoral infringement of property rights’. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person’s place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.
Not all people of any given ideology agree. I am going to focus on a distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy I believe is important, this is not the only distinction. Democratic socialism is democracy agnostic. They are fine with socialism being achieved with a democracy or with a revolution. I want democracy and socialism. And I want to achieve socialism through a political revolution. Unlike democratic socialists, this a non-negotiable point for me as a social democrat. In the event, we lose our democracy, I’m not going to obstruct somebody’s revolution. Pickers can’t be choosers. But as long as we have a democracy I am going to leverage that power to achieve a social democracy. Political revolution is the way I want to achieve socialism. And if I did have to hypothetically achieve socialism as part of a violent revolution, a social democracy is the kind of system I would like to create.
I finally see what you’re talking about! You are confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism! Social Democracy is what I said, Capitalism with robust safety nets, and is practiced in Nordic Countries. Democratic Socialism is Socialism with Liberal Democracy, found in Bolivia and in Chile under Allende. That clears up a lot of what was wrong with what you were saying, haha.
I responded to this in one of the other comment chains. I am a social democrat. I want to achieve change through a political revolution.
Actually, voting mattered very little when it came to the Civil Rights Movement, Black American voting rights, and Women’s Suffrage. The US is not a direct democracy, there weren’t ballot questions. The government was legitimately worried about revolutionary uprising.
Voting was essential. Representatives who agreed with the ideas of the Civil Rights Movements, Black American voting rights, and Women’s Suffrage voted for them in Congress. Black American voting rights and Women’s Suffrage also had to passed at the state level as part of the ratification process. People who agreed with these ideas had to get them over the finish line. This is an essential part of progressive change. The government isn’t some collective hive mind that only responds to fear. Democracy is in fact a market place of ideas. People need to be convinced that the ideas are good and then vote for representatives that will pursue those ideas as policies.
I am not telling you not to vote. I am telling you to reassess your priorities. Voting is the least effective way to get what you want. It helps, sure, so people absolutely should do it, but it doesn’t even come close to actual striking, civil disobedience, and mass protesting when it comes to effecting change.
Voting is an essential part of social change. If people do the actual striking, civil disobedience, and mass protesting, but then don’t vote it will have been for not. The Republicans want to rule people not lead and are controlled by fascists. They will not respond to anything. So they need to voted out of office. They are attempting a fascist takeover of the US. If they succeed, there will be no democracy at that point. They will use the power of the state to kill everyone that openly disagrees with them. To avoid this outcome we must win elections in addition to adopting socialism and fixing our democracy. Since Republicans are overrepresented by our democracy we must vote in record numbers to achieve the elections outcomes that we want. So getting as many people to turn out to vote is the priority for this election year. And every election year going forward until our democracy moves past FPTP and fully embraces majority rule.
This is a tangent but honestly we should have mandatory voting and a person can mark no vote if they don’t want to choose someone. Like we have compulsory jury duty, because the system wouldn’t have enough jurors otherwise. How we could be ok with not everyone voting when the decisions will impact everyone is becoming more and more silly to me.
Since you clarify wanting Socialism and Democracy, I need to clarify some things. Social in Social Democracy refers to Social Programs, like housing initiatives, and Democracy refers to Liberal Democracy, not direct democracy, Socialist Democracy, or otherwise. All Socialism must be democratic, otherwise it isn’t Socialism. The question becomes what type of Democracy. Democratic Socialism isn’t the only type of Socialist Democracy, rather, it’s a term for using Liberal Democracy with a Socialist economy.
Social programs are part of socialism. Democracy refers to democracy. In the US we have a federal presidential constitutional republic. This is the kind of democracy I want in America, but it needs to fixed to not overrepresent particular groups of people. Representative democracy doesn’t mean minority rule, it just uses representatives to scale to the population. I am not necessarily advocating for direct democracy exclusively in our economic systems. I think the workers would decide for themselves what form of internal democratic system they use based on the number of workers at the company. What the workers choose should be some form of democracy that ensures majority rule. Although I assume large companies would use a representation model and small companies would choose a direct model. Liberal democracy are democracies with a capitalist economic system. Social democracies are democracies with a socialist economic system. There I think I clarified what I mean which is relevant since its what I am arguing. The terms and definitions and categories you are trying to box my argument into are not what am I arguing and are not relevant.
As for theory, you have not pointed anything wrong with Marxism, just your lack of knowledge of it. This isn’t gatekeeping! You are free to learn it so that you can discuss why you agree or disagree with Marxism, but pointing at nonexistant holes you imaged Marxism has gets nobody anywhere.
I have in the other comment thread. I have pointed out a flaw with Marxism. You have not provided any argument to refute my central point just ad hominem attacks designed to make me seem less knowledgeable than you. Which of us is more knowledgeable about Marxist theory in general is not relevant to the discussion about this or any particular point of Marxist theory. But it is gatekeeping. Here is the point again. It is about perhaps the most well known claim from Karl Marx. We are discussing whether material conditions induce a socialist revolution.
No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.
Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, ‘an immoral infringement of property rights’. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person’s place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.
I recommend addressing your arguments at my arguments instead of at me. Again the material conditions under neoliberalism are there, but the socialist revolution is not. In fact we are in the verge of a populist christo-fascist takeover.
As for voting, that’s a fine point to make, but it appears the backbone of that point is based on misrepresentation of other’s viewpoints, and as such will convince nobody. Most people already agree with you, and those that do not will not accept flimsy and broken logic.
This is a better description of your arguments than what I am going to be able to come up with. So congratulations on that. Again ad hominem attacks, misrepresenting my arguments, and splitting hairs over definitions are not an effective strategy for arguments. I am not misrepresenting anyone’s view points. I have seen, many people give ethical concerns as their reason for not voting, on the internet. You don’t need to take it from me though, there are plenty of examples on lemmy. Thus I took an idea that addresses those concerns and put it in a meme. We need to spread pro-democracy and socialist ideas to people. The fascists are spreading their ideas to everyone. We are in an information race against fascists to reach the most people before the election.
I implore you to address you argument at my argument. Your reliance on directing your argument at me is not effective. I am not the subject of debate. Nor is over complicating a simple issue.
I am not adding a supernatural element. Just that the essential claim is that people will rise up against their oppressors. And specifically that this uprising would be economic in nature and that it would achieve socialist ends. This has happened throughout history. There have been socialist revolutions. I am arguing the people are not going to rise up in a socialist revolution on their own in modern day America. Neoliberalism is actively working against that outcome while at the same time allowing fascism to take root. People who know pro-democracy and socialist ideas have to spread them and fast. The ideas will not spread themselves. Neoliberalism leads to fascism. To achieve a different outcome is to work against people’s natural inclination to internalize their societies flaws as values and then implement those values into worse systems. People work with the tools they have been given. We have to give them better tools. Then they can have those tools implemented via democracy.
We are not discussing imperialism. The hundreds of millions of civilians in America aren’t oppressing anyone. The US governments actions in the rest of the world are not relevant to the specific topic of Americans forming a political revolution or any revolution at home. The domestic policy is what is relevant. US military spending of course decreases available funding to social programs, but the specific actions of the military are not relevant to this discussion. While wealth was introduced to America via imperialism the boom and bust cycle of capitalism is inevitably extracting that wealth from the working class. The conditions are there but we see a populist christo-fascist movement instead of a socialist movement.
You are deeply misinformed on what Marxism is and isn’t, and as such none of your points on Marxism hold any water.
Again ad hominem. Refuting this line of reasoning is trivial.
I can offer recommendations for reading, if you wish, but if nothing else I ask that you refrain from continuing to confidently misrepresent Marxism, as that only adds confusion.
Your argument is introducing confusion where there need not be any.
Being a Social Democrat means you want Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. Wanting change via reform is called Reformism, not Social Democracy. You can be a Reformist Democratic Socialist.
I can be whatever I want thanks. In this case a social democrat. I want a market economy with social safety nets.
American democracy is not a marketplace of ideas, but lobbyists and money.
It is both and that is why we need to vote in record numbers. This is supporting my argument that we need to increase voter turnout.
Again, your stance on electoralism is unfounded and immaterial. Yes, voting is good, no, you will not get the change you want past FPTP by voting for it.
History and election results support my argument. Also the word is democracy. I have not interest using electoralism as it is exclusively used by people who either want to get rid of or do not value democracy. Voting is great. We need to vote for candidates who will advance a progressive agenda, including election reform. We will of course need to participate in the FPTP voting system to accomplish this. That is the system we have currently, so it is what we must use to eventually get rid of it and then replace it with a better voting system.
You again are completely butchering what Socialism and Social Democracy mean. Social Programs are government programs, they are a part of almost all systems. They are not synonymous with Socialism. Social Democracies are Capitalist states with large safety nets, otherwise they would be Socialist Democracies.
This again is your argument using strict definitions and categorization to bypass having an actual discussion. Most systems are socialist in some way because they have social programs. Using such a narrow definition of socialism is self-defeating. People need to realize they are already benefiting from many socialist policies. This realization will help them internalize and adopt additional socialist ideas. Social democracies can have capitalist economies, but their market economies do not have to be capitalist. They can have mixed economies as the ones that exist currently do. There is no reason why a socialist democracy’s market economy could not shed the remainder of capitalism from the mixed economy.
You did not point out a flaw with Marxism, you pointed out a flaw in your understanding of Marxism.
Ad hominen. I refuted you argument again.
For the last time, the material conditions are NOT THERE in the US for a Socialist Revolution, as long as the US retains it’s status as an Imperialist state that props up higher standards of living off the backs of the third world. That is why republicans exist, Proletarians in the US are largely reactionary because they benefit from the status quo. The US is a dying empire, and soon there will be the material conditions for a Socialist Revolution, but fascism is also the violent outcome of Capitalism in decline. You have not once addressed any of this.
The wealth disparity in the United States is there. I’m just going to quote Bernie here. So the material conditions are there. I would say that it is common knowledge in fact. It is felt by many people who are left behind after each bust in the cycle.
Today, the top one-tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The economic game is rigged, and this level of inequality is unsustainable. We need an economy that works for all, not just the powerful.
The wealth the US steals through imperialism is extracted via capitalism by the owner class. Even the worker class’ tax dollars go to the military industrial complex that profit off of American military adventurism. It is a big part of why neocons existed, but they have fallen by the wayside. It’s the fascists who are control of the Republican party now. Capitalism is not in decline, simply reaching its late stages. We’ve seen what we will become with the current Russian Federation. The winners of capitalism become the oligarchs that are subservient to the dictator. If the fascists succeed in their takeover the United States will become a christo-fascist dictatorship. This dictatorship will not form an empire, but a sphere of influence. The sphere of influence will expand, consume, and kill out-groups until there are no more out-groups left and the nation state fully self-cannibalizes or it is defeated militarily. There is no socialist revolution that occurs in any part of this process. Fascism is methodical method of self-destruction.
If we want a socialist revolution then we need to make it happen. And we might as well make it happen as a political revolution now when all we need to do is things like direction action, civil disobedience, sharing ideas, and voting.
I have not done any Ad Hominem attacks, I have not misrepresented your arguments.
You have done both of these things multiple times.
I have attempted to fix your misconceptions of Marxism, Social Democracy, and Socialism in general, none of which constitutes misrepresentation or ad hominem.
This is directed at me. I am not in anyway shape or form relevant. My argument is not derived from a misconception, but an observation of the modern reality we live in that contradicts Marx’s theory.
I recommend a descriptive approach to definitions as opposed to a prescriptive approach. I think that would resolve a lot of the discourse we are having. I have explained what I mean in my argument. Your argument centers on this false idea that definitions can limit what a person thinks and believes. But definitions are only as useful as they help us communicate.
You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn’t true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.
No, not force, naturally lead to. It is logical for the oppressed to want to overthrow their oppressor.
We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism.
I’m ignoring both of those things because they are not relevant to the discussion. Only the specifics of the flaw in Marxism we are discussing and domestic policy implications of imperialism are relevant. Your argument is effectively trying to justify the veracity of the Bible with Bible verses. Your argument is self referencing. I addressed the rest of this paragraph in the other comment chain, except the last line.
Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.
Neoliberalism is a political invention. You’ll notice the UK adopted it as well, a year earlier than the US. Even though the UK’s actual empire had collapsed at that point. Imperialism had nothing to do with it. Conservatives needed a new ideology to combat progressives movements that were taking hold in those countries. So they came up with neoliberalism.
the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism
This is the part I addressed in the other comment chain again, but here you go. Any benefit they experience is quickly extracted from them. The owner class always wins in the end. The boom and bust cycle is the gradual extraction of wealth. With each bust more American families lose the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy. Where as the owner class is always there to benefit from the next boom.
It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.
This is an ad hominem attack in a nut shell. Your argument is directed at me. The veracity of my argument doesn’t depend on me.
If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that’s all I ask.
Ad hominem. Again. What I am doing to refute your argument is trivial. Anyone can do this. I highly recommend you try a different approach.
You don’t have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.
I’ll take recommendations, but Marxist and anarchist theory in general is not relevant to this discussion.
How ‘Zionist’ became a slur on the US left (www.theguardian.com)
For many Jews, Zionism signifies a connection to Israel. But a large number of student protesters see the violence in Gaza as a logical conclusion of the late 19th century ideology...
We shouldn't talk about this exclusive Disney Lorcana card reveal... but we will (www.yahoo.com)
We may not talk about Bruno, but we will chat about this Enchanted Disney Lorcana: Ursula’s Return card....
rule (lemmy.zip)
Harm Reduction Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.