You must log in or register to comment.
She’s right, but given our situation this misses the point. The ruling class wants you to think reforms are a “replacement” to revolution, but we don’t need to accept that premise. Reforms weaken the ruling class, otherwise they would already be enacted. So I ask, por que dos?
I too am suspicious of the number two. Two faced mf
No los
So do you have a plan to abolish capitalism?
Revolution. Build up dual power and destabilize the existing system from the outside, rather than grinding yourself to dust trying to work it out from within the system.
Just one more meme will do it
The idea that someone can have a plan is pretty silly (Pinky and the Brain silly).
The real question is do you have a plan to organize and survive when capitalism fails.
They don’t have to. It will implode on itself eventually when it eats up the final resources available to it.
Can we figure out a method that won’t take 95% of the population of the Earth along with it?
Abolishing capitalism will never happen in our lifetime, so you have to think smaller but more effective. What needs to happen is moving to a cooperative based capitalism, where a company or corporation is owned by all of the workers, with protection of independent unions. This will very quickly reduce the divide between the rich and the poor, as well as closing the gap between productivity and wages that has worsened since the 70’s.
Do I expect this to happen? Fuck no. But it has a much higher chance than the abolition of capitalism, and has more support amongst people I’ve spoken to over the years when I’ve suggested it as a path forward.
Abolishing capitalism will never happen in our lifetime
Why? By all metrics, it is increasingly strained and on the verge of collapse, only accelerated in recent years.
Do I expect this to happen? Fuck no. But it has a much higher chance than the abolition of capitalism
Again, why?
Having spoken to so many people about this subject over my many years on this planet, the number of people that would actually want a revolution is so low that it’s effectively zero. They don’t want that kind of change. Having seen how resistant people are to give up their cars for the sake of their children’s future, do you really think people would give up their many comforts to remove capitalism from the world? Fuck no would they.
But simple, small, understandable changes to the current system are much more agreeable. When I’ve suggested a cooperative approach, even the most resistant to change agrees that it would improve the situation for themselves, and that’s a change that can be worked with, without others perceiving that change as coming from an absolute loon.
As others have said in this very thread, the western world is so resistant to revolution that the very idea of it will always be fringe. But cooperatives have been demonstrated to work, they just need to be applied to a much larger degree. It’s understandable to the majority, it doesn’t rock the boat too much, it’s a feasible approach and it removes power from the top and returns it to the workers.
Having spoken to so many people about this subject over my many years on this planet, the number of people that would actually want a revolution is so low that it’s effectively zero. They don’t want that kind of change. Having seen how resistant people are to give up their cars for the sake of their children’s future, do you really think people would give up their many comforts to remove capitalism from the world? Fuck no would they.
Capitalism’s necessary mechanical contradictions that will lead to its collapse do not need the magical will or consent of the public to happen. Collapse will happen regardless.
But simple, small, understandable changes to the current system are much more agreeable. When I’ve suggested a cooperative approach, even the most resistant to change agrees that it would improve the situation for themselves, and that’s a change that can be worked with, without others perceiving that change as coming from an absolute loon.
You can’t get change just by getting people to agree with you, otherwise America would have Ranked Choice Voting, Medicare for All, free public College education, and legalized weed and abortion nationwide. You’re repeating the failures of Utopian Socialists like the Owenites, you can’t vibe policy into being, especially in a system hostile to said policy.
As others have said in this very thread, the western world is so resistant to revolution that the very idea of it will always be fringe. But cooperatives have been demonstrated to work, they just need to be applied to a much larger degree. It’s understandable to the majority, it doesn’t rock the boat too much, it’s a feasible approach and it removes power from the top and returns it to the workers.
How and why? You’re trying to magically summon these structures. How do you expect the ones at the top to allow this?
MLs have been predicting the “inevitable” collapse of capitalism for a century now. When can we expect some progress? :p
You can’t get change just by getting people to agree with you, otherwise America would have Ranked Choice Voting, Medicare for All, free public College education, and legalized weed and abortion nationwide.
I think this is great point. In spite of majority public support for issues like these, it’s seemingly impossible to get either party to take action. That’s not how healthy democracies are supposed to work. I’d probably agree that public support is a pre-requisite for change, but it’s not always sufficient. If the public want something and the government don’t agree (say, over suspending arms shipments to Israel), what can the public actually do about it? Really nothing, other than disruptive protests or taking direct action to physically stop the shipments. And then it’s obvious what would happen to the protestors.
MLs have been predicting the “inevitable” collapse of capitalism for a century now. When can we expect some progress? :p
I mean, regardless of what anyone individually or collectively wills, disparity is rising, wages are stagnating with respect to productivity, and enshittification is continuing. The logic and math behind Capitalism’s unsustainability hasn’t changed. Monopoly and Financial Capital are growing ever-more grotesque and are crushed under their own weight in search of endless growth. The fact that the US hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean it hasn’t been working towards that collapse.
I think this is great point. In spite of majority public support for issues like these, it’s seemingly impossible to get either party to take action. That’s not how healthy democracies are supposed to work. I’d probably agree that public support is a pre-requisite for change, but it’s not always sufficient. If the public want something and the government don’t agree (say, over suspending arms shipments to Israel), what can the public actually do about it? Really nothing, other than disruptive protests or taking direct action to physically stop the shipments. And then it’s obvious what would happen to the protestors.
That’s why the Owenites and Utopian Socialists all failed. They thought they could just convince everyone of a better path, and that it would magically appear and form around them.
relevant quote
The revolutionary struggle is the very antithesis of the parliamentary struggle. In Germany, for four decades we had nothing but parliamentary “victories.” We practically walked from victory to victory. And when faced with the great historical test of August 4, 1914, the result was the devastating political and moral defeat, an outrageous debacle and rot without parallel. To date, revolutions have given us nothing but defeats. Yet these unavoidable defeats pile up guarantee upon guarantee of the future final victory.
Abolish US crony capitalism.
You can just say capitalism
Except it isn’t companies are colluding on pricing which drives up prices for the consumer. And Chinese import tariffs are artificially inflating the price of vehicles.
I was taught that capitalism is about fair competition for consumers, and that really hasn’t been the case.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find any example of capitalism ever being anything different, in terms of collusion and gouging.
The idea that it could ever be even remotely fair, let alone competitive, is more utopian than anything you’ll see in post-structural socialism.
Capitalism will never be fair because it requires infinite growth in a finite world at all costs.
Infinite growth AND a perfect competition environment. Neither things is achievable, let alone sustainable.
Yep. It’s absolutely not sustainable in any form. That’s what people don’t realize. It’s why we’re seeing enshittification of everything now. Companies are hitting a ceiling where innovation stalls but they’re still required to grow regardless. So they resort to essentially slowly burning down their own house and shitting where they eat. Marx and others predicted this ages ago and now we’re seeing it play out in real time.
The problem with capitalism is that we have one giant bucket for companies to pull from and none of those companies give a flying fuck about the bucket itself. So they keep taking from it collectively. Eventually the bucket will be empty and none of them will be held responsible. This is exactly why we had the Great Depression and the 2008 housing market crash. The capitalists redlined every engine until they were non-functioning. Now the working class is forced to clean up the mess, while facing the repercussions of it all.
It’s not even a hard thing to comprehend. This is how parasites work. They drain the host until it’s either dead or useless to them, then they move to a new host. The problem is that earth is the host and unless capitalists figure out how to start space mining, we’re all fucked. Because, again, they continue to take resources while taking no responsibility.
This is Capitalism still.
Capitalism itself doesn’t care what consumers want, you’re referring to Liberalism the ideology.
Reforms to restrain the rent-seeking class were always an alternative to the preferred method of killing them and redistributing their wealth.
Just more casual references to violence. It’s cool when the left does it.
point to where the violence is
It is, it has a hero’s tail kinda vibe, terminator perhaps. Whereas the right tend to come off as SkyNet in their violence.
to come back to a serious point though, read History of The Russian Revolution and you will soon see the violence is a reaction to the class antagonism, these striking workers were peaceful till the police started shooting.
Removing power from the ruling class can be done without violence. In fact, whenever people have tried exactly that, with purely democratic and peaceful means (eg, Allende in Chile) it has been the ruling class that has resorted to violence.
Arguably in a hi-tech media saturated and highly networked era like ours, violent revolution is actually not a practical approach at least for advanced economies. Rosa Luxemburg was talking about her era, just like Saint-Just was talking about his.
Sure, I’ll just ignore the rest of this thread and replies to me. You should probably inform your community they are saying the quite part out loud .
What can I say, welcome to the part of internet where people post memes and shitposts.
There is a distinct difference between progressive and reactionary violence
The rule of “law and order” takes constant systemic violence to upkeep, to protect the ruling class, their private (not personal!) property and interests.
This violence of the ruling classes is normalised, even legalized/codified in law. Standing up against it, however, and enacting systemic change is branded by their lackeys as “terrorism” or “violent chaos”.
Class struggle is a constant fight of one class to oppress another. Currently in most of the world, the exploiters oppress the exploited. For society to progress, the exploited must suppress the exploiters.
(Or for the expropriators to be expropriated as Marx put it. But that’s just the same in fancy)After all
One person’s terrorist is another one’s partisan
Mao put it quite well, which is why all following quotes are from him
(btw ysjk: quoting someone on a specific issues doesn’t mean doesn’t mean supporting their views in general/every other aspect)“War is the continuation of politics.” In this sense, war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character… However, war has its own particular characteristics and in this sense, it cannot be equated with politics in general. “War is the continuation of politics by other . . . means.” When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way… When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained the war will stop. Nevertheless, if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue until the aim is fully accomplished… It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed. - “On Protracted War” (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 152-53 *
Revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society, and without them it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power. - “On Contradiction” (August1937), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 344.*
War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contradictions, when they have developed to a certain stage, between classes, nations, states, or political groups, and it has existed ever since the emergence of private property and of classes. - “Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War” (December 1936), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 180.
This is why only after the abolition of classes, private property and states (ie. communism), will the contradictions which are the root cause of virtually all large scale violence, be resolved.
Which in turn is why:
We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. - “Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 225.
👌👍
I- what does this even mean? TwT
Short hand for the following:
It means they’re too lazy and uninformed to respond. They’d rather attack you with argument counterpoints manufactured by the right wing, as opposed to using their brain and digging deeper into the “why” behind something.
You peddled a right wing argument talking point. Nobody likes violence but sometimes it becomes inevitable. History shows it. When we’re all reduced to renting forever and essentially being serfs to corporate America, do you think voting is going to solve all of our problems? The ruling class will never allow you to vote away their power.
2/3rds of American own their own home. Home purchasing rates are up for Gen z compared to millennials
Try again to justify your violence but use actual data.
I don’t need to justify anything. History has already shown us how this will go, even if it’s a slow, arduous process.
Keep trying to paint “the left” with sweeping generalizations as violence lovers while claiming not to be right wing.
I love being tagged as right wing because I don’t support your round about ways to justify hurting and attacking people. Your violence and justification isn’t worth my time the same way I’d give a fuck you response to arguing violence was needed Jan 6th.
You want violence and to ignore the will of the general public. Your justification of it deservers the👌👍.
You are a violent deplorable asshole if you try to justify violence to circumvent the political process.
Nah, it’s just filled with PR speak to make it look like there’s ethics when asked
im not looking to abolish capitalism just limit it to things that don’t really matter. like how nice a tv folks have.
What if reform the classist society? Checkmate Luxemburg.
