F-fucking soc d-dems

Apparently we're being raided by totally-not-astroturf "accelerationists" and pseudo-revolutionaries preaching abstentionism and anti-Sanders/Mélenchon/Corbyn nonsense, so let's remind ourselves:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-speech.htm

marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/introduction.htm

marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/71_07_18.htm

Also important to remember that the Reform vs. Revolution debate is not about whether or not to support electoral action:

Despite the fact so many of those pseudo-revolutionaries here are just false flags (>>1640791 stands out as a particularly shitty attempt) there are also many beginners who buy into caricatures of Marxism as historical fatalism about the upcoming revolution/downfall of capitalism and, in face of a complete lack of successful strategies from the Left, buy into accelerationist horseshit. So it's important we keep reiterating these points again and again.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm),

I disagree. Given that everyone hates parliament having people in parliament puts them under scrutiny and makes them look bad no matter what

Having people inside the parliamentary process who relentlessly and mercilessly critique the bourgeois parliamentarians, and who tirelessly fight to make any and all gains for working people, is the way to getting people politically involved.

If all they ever see from politics is failure, then all they will ever expect is failure. At that point, the logical course of action when faced with an oppressive system is to keep your head down and not make waves.

If, however, they see political involvement leading to success - no matter how fleeting - and they see us standing prominently in their defense, then they will turn to politics generally and us in particular as their agents in building a more just society.

This is exemplified by the differences between Bernie and Trump leading to shared success and a partially shared voting base. Working people have had one voice in Congress who tirelessly and fearlessly advocated their values - Bernie Sanders. When he was cheated out of the primary, what did they do?

Some checked out. Some voted Stein. But more importantly, some of them cast a vote to burn the whole fucking thing down. They saw politics as usual to be a farce, so they voted for the circus clown to make it official and rip away the facade of respectability that the Bourgeoisie had kept in place for 50 years. So we have the many Obama/Bernie/Trump voters.

And the liberals are desperate to discredit both Bernie, as the agent of constructive energy for the working class, and the working class voter in general. Because if they can get working people to just not vote at all, they can run things however they want.

Lack of electoral politics make us look unprepared, incapable of achieving mass support and afraid of facing scrutinity for our views. It also, obviously, makes us twice as open to attacks by the state because we'll lack influence of our own there.

I actually feel as if the best thing Marxists could do at the moment, in the area of public rhetoric, is to actually attack social democrats like Sanders and Mélenchon.

Even if these movements were to come to power in their respective nations, full of the highest idealism and big ideas about restructuring society, they will inevitably fail to accomplish lasting change, and their willingness to appropriate the language of socialism would lead to that language being even more saddled with the baggage of social democracy than it is already.

These movements, once in power, must structurally fail to produce lasting results for reasons that shouldn't be a mystery to any long-term user here – they will receive support only from small slivers of the capitalist class (mostly the green technology and some elements in the information technology sectors); they will be heading parties either mostly opposed to their platforms (Sanders and the Democrats) or without long-term institutional support (Mélenchon and La France insoumise); the bourgeoisie will have very little reason to go along with them in the near future (and by the time they do – when the effects of global climate change become virtually impossible to ignore in the First World, for example – revolutionary prospects should be far more advanced).

Given that the reactionary Right has a strong hold on the working-classes of most of these Western nations where social democracy is beginning to rebuild itself, and that at least some of their rhetorical views are copacetic to those of a properly-understood, scientific socialism, I feel that deliberately distancing ourselves from the new social democratic movements is in order. This may mean, for example, preemptively attacking them whenever they use the label "socialist", or critiquing their platforms in whatever format is available to us on social media.

To also invoke Marx:
(marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm), I absolutely don't think Marx was the type to be sort of anarchistic avoider of party politics, but when, as you say, we are to support the working class in parliament, it should truly be the working class in parliament, or a type of politics with the genuine interest of exposing the utter inability of capitalism to ever, in any form, be in the working class's interests. As such, I highly doubt Marx would have us vote for the next best social democrat, but rather have us find ways to become an effective faction within the left most organization and try to restructure it from the inside for a genuine proletarian politics, with the interests of the proletariat in mind.

It's very blatant COINTELPRO.

With the rise of Tsipras, Corbyn, Bernie, Melenchon and the DSA, in that order, the alphabet soup has gotten increasingly nervous about the left's power. So the strategy is to accuse any leftist running for office of being a "socdem" and "betraying the working class" when it turns out that they can't make miracles.

Really transparent. Don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 90% of the people spouting this shit are cops.

it's not even cops, it's Holla Forums

I think there's a concerted effort but I'm reluctant to say they are state-sponsored.

oh and its isn't a raid we just aren't socdems and you should go back to reddit

You probably don't even know what being a Socdem is.

Why? It's full of 18 year olds yelling about the evils of voting there, your kind of people.

There is a difference between recognising socdems as signifying a trend of a rising left-wing sentiment and desperation of the working class as the class antagonisms in the world intensify, and uncritically shilling for socdem reformists as a way of achieving our goals.

The former is fine and good, the latter undesirable.

Ah yes, the FBI is trying really hard to get a few jaded communists not to vote for social democrats.

This, basically.

...

this is basically my stance on this summed up.

I don't know what's worse, the OP making more of these threads or the le accelerationing memers (who possibly are COINTELPRO or Holla Forums tbh).

This of course depends on what your goals are. Electoral politics as a mean to transition to Socialism is obviously out of the list, but electoral politics as a mean to preserve whatever gains we make and maneuver against reaction is not only a good option but possibly the best option if we take into account our recent history.


So you're basically saying you don't know what's worse, a bunch of reactionaries who want us dead using divide-and-conquer techniques, possibly with the help of state agents, in our own spaces or me trying to fight against them by explaining what Marx thought? It's the third time I make this thread and I don't think that's enough to make the choice difficult, user

Not everyone who rejects your shitty parliamentarianism and entryism is Holla Forumsintelpro. Also, it's true that a significant portion of anti-DSA sentiment on this board is just Holla Forums falseflagging same with anti-antifa a lot of it is also just butthurt tankies who can't stand to not always be the vanguard of the revolution, also, regardless of a movement or groups actual goals there are a lot of Trots, MLs, and Maoists who will just instantly claim everyone is politically to the Right of them if they're even slightly critical of whatever Fame Line they adhere to. Also, this is a ridiculous mischaracterization of Accelerationism, it isn't just immiserationism you retard, read the Accelerationist Manifesto, there is actual sound theory at play, and don't confuse Right Accelerationism (Land) with Left Accelerationism (Srnicek).

Well then maybe I should've said D&C but it's the same idea.

You recognize user from there, don't you? :^)

Trying really hard to get a community of several thousand to oppose any and all action including direct action (DSA, SAlt) on sectarian grounds.

Accelerationism has its place. For example Trump was probably the best outcome of the last election because there wasn't any way he'd get re-elected or his term have any lasting consequences, but short-term consequences and zeitgeist intensification? Hell yeah; much preferable to Hillary which would be a boring drag for 4 more years and not piss off workers nearly as much. My point is that anybody who thinks accelerationism and voting honestly have to be in conflict is dead wrong. There's times for one and times for the other.

This is something you should be explaining to accelerationists out there, not to us.

test

Anyone who thinks Accelerationism is just the immiseration thesis taken to reductio ad absurdum excesses clearly either has never actually read Accelerationist theory or is just a teenager who gets their politics out of memes. If anything it has a lot more in common with Marxist-Leninist and Social Democratic ideas of Productivism, but admittedly taken to a much further extreme.