Senate This thread is publicly owned (marxism, socialism, and left-wing ideologies)

Truth is often stranger than fiction .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh I do that all the time too!

In 2052 the one kid that Elon still spoke to would post "the evil commie Americans took all my father's money away! Just cause he fired a few workers!"

 

Happy International Workers Day! I’m going to a celebration organized by the local Anakbayan chapter later today

https://philippinerevolution.nu/sta...-of-the-proletariat-is-more-urgent-than-ever/

https://ci-ic.org/blog/2025/04/30/1...-under-the-banner-of-marxism-leninism-maoism/

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/europe/gaza-flotilla-ship-sos-intl-hkn

Anyone else really hate this cursed "gameplay loop?" I haven't thought of a better word for it. But it goes as follows:
1) Your side gets oppressed.
2) Your side resists nonviolently.
3) Your oppressors respond with horrible violence and your side has damage and casualties.
4) Your allies cry about your suffering on twitter.

If you try to break the loop by changing 2 to "Your side fights back," 3 is the same and 4 becomes "your allies lecture you on twitter about the virtue of nonviolence and may even defect to supporting your oppressors." It becomes another doomed loop. Oh and of course, there's still the people who think 2 should become "You do nothing in response" where, by the way, 3 remains the exact same. It's Kafkaesque where no action you take gets you out of the loop.

I hate this loop. It's always this loop. For everything in this hellhole planet.

Let's go with police violence
1) Police kill an unarmed person
2) That person's community protests/riots/kneels at a football game
3) Police respond with even more violence
4) Liberals on twitter either cry about your suffering or lecture you for fighting back, depending on how violent #2 was.

Every single attempt to fight against the Global Capitalism or hierarchy or bourgeois becomes this loop. And I'm tired of it. I'm genuinely sick of this gameplay loop. And after a long time thinking, I can't help but feel the problem is #4. If liberals just put aside their high-horse "morals" for a minute and backed the oppressed fighting the oppressors, the loop could break.

 

So, if Kamala Harris and the entire Democratic establishment had come out and said "we support Hamas" what do you think the result would have been?

 

I'm gonna be honest, Alpha-Red, I routinely don't understand what your responses have to do with my posts. This is one of those many times.

Jesse what the **** are you talking about?

 

Put aside our morals and fight the oppressors means supporting violent struggle, right? Will that actually work? And even if it does work, does it get us to a just outcome with less death and destruction than other means?

 

It'd work if we gave the Palestinians weapons and training. If we gave them logistics. If America stopped helping Israel and gave Palestinians 1/8th of the help we gave Israel, they'd win. For one, the Palestinian people are strong; the Israeli people are weak.

 

Sure, but then does the American public support this? If not, then they'll vote in the Republicans and then it's back to supporting Israel again.

If we had public opinion on our side, we could've ended this long ago non-violently. Without public opinion on our side however, using violence will fail. It's not just a nice fuzzy platitude, non-violent resistance simply has a better rate of success...there's actual data that backs this up.

 

No they don't. Conservatives are racist against Arabs and Liberals are allergic to people other than the state fighting.

You're 100% backing up what I wrote. The problem is #4.

 

Non violence does not have a better rate of of success when it comes to actually achieving national liberation and socialism (though it is absolutely true that their must be both legal and non legal organizing to prepare public support among the people). And large numbers of Americans do support the Palestinian resistance, you have to divide the public between progressives and reactionaries and by their class rather than treating them as a monolith.. many do not vote and thus their voices are not represented in polls, and among voters is it not true that data shows Kamala Harris lost support with many citing her complete allegiance to Israel as why they didn’t vote for her? The democratic and Republican parties are both bourgeois parties and will never represent the independent political stance of anti-imperialists. They’re not being “pragmatic” they hate anti-imperialism and the rebellion happening in their own country as well as abroad.

 

Some conservatives are just hardcore bigots and can't be reasoned with. Others however, claim to stand for something. It's just a matter of informing them that the Palestinian Authority under Abbas has done the right thing, and that it's Netanyahu who has been responsible for escalating tensions and stoking violence. Once the public understands who's to blame, ending the war will be easy. But right now, they don't have the basic facts.

 

They are lying.

 

it’s not Netanyahu or any one administration that’s the problem, it’s Israel and the USA who wish not only to remove the Palestinians entirely but continue to expand by diverting and then invading neighbouring countries. And you’ll never convince conservative American Zionists to support the end of the occupation or stop supporting the United States.

“It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously … Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.”

 

If they are lying, then we should hold them to their words. They will be either forced to live up to those words, or else they'll be discredited in the eyes of the public.

 

You are going to hate the way we'll have to hold them to their word.

 

Can you explain further what you mean? I don’t think snapping back like that is a very good way to address those we wish to convince. We should explain our criticisms thoroughly and not belittle anyone in the middle.

 

I was in the middle of Magic the Gathering games, so I didn't have much time to post. But it wasn't a snap back because in this case it directly relates to #4 on my prior post about how liberals get upset at the things needed to fight against capital.

As for the explanation, it's reeducation centers.

 

You’re right he’s not going to like that. But I don’t think re-education is a method of holding someone to their word, but a means of changing their orientation through community pressure. And he was referring to holding people accountable within a bourgeois state where there is no re-education. I agree that it’s idealistic to think conservatives are just ill informed and violence can be ended if they just saw reason. And ultimately his position is one of not believing in revolution, but he’ll never be convinced of the positive nature of revolutionary violence without fairly addressing his concerns and demonstrating examples.

but yeah this is just a silly Star Wars message board anyway

 

Re-education will already exist because, post-Revolution, we're going to need to fix a lot of bigots. I know other leftists and anarchists are content with just killing all of them, but as an ML I do think we're going to have to still live in the same planet as these bigots. So because these centers will already exist, it should be trivial to have the liars go there as well.

 

I think I see the through line now. I may have misinterpreted what you were referring to but I always agreed with you on that point. I just think for sake of getting to the revolution we need to take care to find ways to convince non-reactionary social democrats that we’re not idealists.

 

By the time you have enough public support to carry out the Revolution, you'd already have enough support to vote in the leftist candidates you want. So why not just do that?

 

What voting?

 

Oh, right. So what does it say if Communist revolutions only succeeded when the previous government was some horrendously corrupt and abusive authoritarian regime?