All i said is that those benefits dont last forever due to the falling rate of profit, meaning that in the future a moment will arrive in which the labor aristocracy doesnt derive this benefit anymore.
This doesn’t make any sense. If this was how material interests worked, then the bourgeoisie would ALSO have a long term benefit to socialist revolution because of the falling rate of profit. If that’s the case, then the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have the same class interest!
You are equivocating on this point. The benefits of the labor aristocracy do not last forever, and that is precisely why they will not just repress but violently oppress other peoples and maintain a “forever” war as long as humanly possible. Because its in their interest to do.
Please relax, life goes on.
You said this
What is more important, worker solidarity and antiimperialism, or these specific social issues? You wont make a revolution by excluding anyone who is slightly more socially conservative, especially in a country as conservative as the USA
Legalizing abortion and gay marriage wont magically create a revolution, only class struggle will. Once we have socialism and economic progress more people will be convinced of these issues, which is why class struggle and worker solidarity must be the main focus. Class struggle and economic progress will lead to social progress. Cancelling anyone mildly conservative wont lead to revolution, it will lead to division among US workers and strenghten the bourgeoisie. Or do you think you will make a revolution without the support of all the workers in the red states? You need all workers on your side, both blue and red.
This is vulgar class reductionism. It espouses a position that makes other human “less than”, and espouses being a society on liberal tolerance of intolerance. There is no need, and indeed no way, to build a socialist movement that will be sustainable if we include people who, by their very inclusion, exclude the most vulnerable of us. It is not the case that simply because there are a lot of evangelical Christians that we should build a community that keeps their sensibilities safe while excluding those against whom they are bigoted.
You are making an argument from populism. This is not about everyone staying cool and calm while you make theoretical claims. This about you pushing a line of reasoning that threatens the well being of fellow comrades because you think larger numbers are bigger and that’s just “realpolitik”.
Don’t try to make Muad out to be the person who’s introducing all these new interpretations of your words. Your comments are all out there for us to see. You are bringing conversations into this space that will make others feel unsafe and espousing a mass movement strategy that has very dangerous implications. This debate about the appropriateness of Patriotic Socialism on colonial territory is one with incredibly violent outcomes in all directions, and there is, to date, no settled analysis on the question of how to proceed, but there is a growing body of analysis about how not to proceed.
This doesn’t make any sense. If this was how material interests worked, then the bourgeoisie would ALSO have a long term benefit to socialist revolution because of the falling rate of profit. If that’s the case, then the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have the same class interest!
You are equivocating on this point. The benefits of the labor aristocracy do not last forever, and that is precisely why they will not just repress but violently oppress other peoples and maintain a “forever” war as long as humanly possible. Because its in their interest to do.
You said this
This is vulgar class reductionism. It espouses a position that makes other human “less than”, and espouses being a society on liberal tolerance of intolerance. There is no need, and indeed no way, to build a socialist movement that will be sustainable if we include people who, by their very inclusion, exclude the most vulnerable of us. It is not the case that simply because there are a lot of evangelical Christians that we should build a community that keeps their sensibilities safe while excluding those against whom they are bigoted.
You are making an argument from populism. This is not about everyone staying cool and calm while you make theoretical claims. This about you pushing a line of reasoning that threatens the well being of fellow comrades because you think larger numbers are bigger and that’s just “realpolitik”.
Don’t try to make Muad out to be the person who’s introducing all these new interpretations of your words. Your comments are all out there for us to see. You are bringing conversations into this space that will make others feel unsafe and espousing a mass movement strategy that has very dangerous implications. This debate about the appropriateness of Patriotic Socialism on colonial territory is one with incredibly violent outcomes in all directions, and there is, to date, no settled analysis on the question of how to proceed, but there is a growing body of analysis about how not to proceed.