We've been in global recession for almost a decade and still no mass class consciousness

...

oh of course not, comrade

winkwink

what makes it "evil"?

Ehh… There wasn't a revolution during the great depression because porky deployed his full arsenal of red scare propaganda and union bashing as well as FDR and the new deal placating the proletariat in the US. Fascism developed in Europe and WW2 started all serving to boost the rate of profit.

We see social democracies collapsing around us and porky evidently can't seem to make any more concessions to the proletariat given the rise of neoliberalism.

Peak oil is just around the corner and its not even accelerationism to say that things are probably going to get really shit really quick at some point soon. Till then we agitate and organise. Revolution is inevitable if we make it so.

Look, there was some class consciousness which we failed to make use of. The failure of the Left in the last decade, from Occupy to Syriza, is what discouraged more people from adhering to Left-wing movements.

Yes, educating people on left-wing theory can be hell. Try to communicate principles instead of labels. Don't ever drop -isms, because you're giving them an excuse to strawman your ideas.

Yeah but this is kind of our fault. We must own up to the total failure that Leftist projects have been on that field.

But these, too, will fail. And once they fail, we must have new ideas to offer.

As we should be. Nobody mocks the Left better than we do. We're a joke, and we know that.

This one made me kind of angry. The anti-SJW group among the Left is still, compared to the average population, very progressive in things like gender, race and sexuality and very open to reforms in any of these areas.

However, we are also able to see through the thousands of "are Berniebros sexist?" headlines, the constant disrupting of our meetings and groups over petty identity-related issues, the way bullshit like Beyonce and dreadlocks are entering the political agenda of the Left at the expense of economics, global capitalism, labour movements, and so on.

We don't disagree with the points they make. The divide comes from the fact that they simply don't want to see us also bringing up Palestine and Marx from time to time. It's not a petty theoretical infighting, it's a plot: orchestrated, financed, and supported by some of the very institutions we fight. If we don't stop their growing influence, we cease to exist as a political entity.

So don't talk about it like we're two stubborn groups fighting over nothing, and don't place the blame on the anti-SJW side. They want to redefine the very rites and programmes of the Left and change the meaning of the term altogether. The Left that considers itself the inheritors of the tradition of the First and Second Internationals might soon become as extinct as Stalinists. Our presence on the political arena will feel as surreal and anachronistic as Monarchists. The "progressive" agenda will take capitalism and imperialism for granted, and focus instead on race and gender. This is what they want, and we can't allow it to happen.

Socialist need to take out of their head the idea that crisis, by itself, turns people magically into revolutionaries. If their political frame of reference is conservative vs. liberal, if those two define the boundaries of the average person's political consciousness, then they will always circulate between these margins, regardless of how bad the circumstances get. They will attribute the crisis, as they always do, to economic mismanagement by one party, and throw their support behind the other. Expecting otherwise is like expecting the medieval peasant to become an Enlightenment-era liberal whenever the harvest is bad.

The great depression, like the great war, caught the Left of the first half of the 20th century right in the middle of their delusions that capitalism will gradually be voted and legislated away. There was no proletarian uprising because for decades there was no one out there working towards it.

You need to at least plant the seeds of the revolution in their heads, and do so before the crisis hit, so that people have who to turn to when shit hits the fans. Improve the average person's political lexicon to include our tactics, methods and platforms. Otherwise they will protest in the voting booth, and waste their time (and our opportunity).

Because if you don't do it no one will fam

Print this post and stick it on your wall.
Every single one of you.

...

revolutionary violence is an expression of love

Why not

He's a socdem that does not oppose the continuation of capitalism

You will never be able to vote for a candidate who will run on a platform of dismantling capitalism.

It takes a long time to boil the ocean

I'll try my best to summarize the stance of the frankfurt school and how it came to be.
after world war 2 some marxists saw the fascist uprisings in europe as evidence that marx was wrong, since he theorised that such economic struggles in europe would cause worker identity to form. Instead, people continued to feel stronger ties to their families and patriotism, and class consciousness never formed.
those at the frankfurt school amended Marx's theories in a couple different ways. Some argued that the class struggle would need to be orchestrated by those in power because international class identity cannot compete with family or national identity. Other writers such as Marcuse agreed with this as well as the idea that competing identities should be deconstructed. This is what polacks talk about when they say "cultural marxism", the application of marxist ideas to other parts of life than economics in order to bring about the economic transformation, through the philosophy called critical theory.

The 'evil' part is where critical theory becomes very popular in academics and unintentionally creates Social Justice.

I'm surprised you people don't know about this stuff

youtube.com/watch?v=vm3euZS5nLo
Here's an interview with mercuse talking about this

This is a laughably bad understanding of the first and second generations of critical theory. Adorno and Horkheimer didn't simply take "Marxism" and apply it to the non-economic. Rather, classical critical theory reads Marx as a critic of capitalism as a social formation determined in relation to logic of the commodity-form. The work of Capital is then not an economic project but a critique of the categories of bourgeoise society on the very same terrain that society utilizes to understand itself: political economy. Critique here being a Kantian critique, an uncovering of the inner determinations of something, of its bounds rather than a simple rejection of its reality.

If an electable socialist is impossible, then that further proves he isn't a socialist.

If you don't hope to win, the struggle is a fruitless battle and hold no value.

I tried, I failed and almost went to jail because of it. Can I be an armchair revolutionary now?

An indictment that won't happen.

There is no excuse to be an armchair revolutionary. grab a flag and your friends and get out there.

I don't have friends. They betrayed their class and supported Trump. And I already did mywave flagging. Almost got me in jail or bankrupt.

so don't sit on your ass and expect thinks to get better. Find people, find a group, because revolutions don't happen out of nowhere. We can't afford to be disheartened by setbacks, nothing worth doing is easy.

The only groups around are idpolers faggots and I won't start my own, so don't even go there.

This incenses me so much.

I personally support military intervention to destroy Wahhabism, because as long as liberalism is the "better option", it will win.

In addition, the destruction of Wahhabism enables left societies such as Rojava.

This.

Kill the Saudis and blockade the UAE. The Islamic revival will die and the Muslim world will slowly ease up to secularism.

You dunces seem to forget that military "intervention" were what helped wahhabism tog get as much traction as it did.

I think intent makes a difference.

Not in the eyes of those that find themselves at the pointed end of the spear.

you sound like Sam fucking Harris don't embarrass yourself comrade.

Ehhh, I think I support some international framework for ensuring intervention against global threats like ISIS and supporting its adversaries worth supporting in accordance with humanitarian spooks. The problem is that since no international institution has any sort of reliable framework for making something like that happen we're stuck with America & friends intervening against IS in accordance with their own interests and are probably gonna just increase strife in the area in the long run, as we've seen with their loose rules of engagement and support for rival terrorist factions opposed to IS.

Sanders has an anti-capitalist history, but if you look at the modern day Bernie Sanders he's very much a liberal. Please do some reading on socialism, social democracy is not socialism. It's a bandaid for some the problems of capitalism (hint: bandaids fall off). It doesn't deal with any root causes.
Now gtfo.

Reddit detected.

Killing off the Salafi running Mecca and Medina probably isn't a bad move in the long term. Their control of the holy sites and economic strength has given strength to an Islamic sect that was militant and aggressively evangelical in its origins. I doubt we'd be worse trajectory even if the Deobandi were running things there.

...

He's better than nothing.
That's like saying you want to be a manager, but all you are offered is a sales position. Take what you can get (within reason) and work towards the goal.

Quality post

It would be a horrible strategy in the long run, you moron. Any perceived western or western-backed forced killing any muslim there would trigger a massive wave of jihadism support against any and all westerners for the perceived sequestration of their holy sites. It would give even more power to the very people you claim to want to remove from power. Do you even sociology, fag?

You do sound like fag Harris

great post
Here's a bit more optimistic view from organizers: youtu.be/vy83xm1lS68?t=1645

...

Richard D Wolff is too based.

bimp

Edvard Grieg - Peer Gynt
Dvorak - New World Symph (Karajan)

This bothers me a bit tbh

what. Being a laughing stock is not admirable, desirable or helpful to anyone who wants to achieve great and important change. We should want to be respected and feared.
I do; with some of their points, anyway.
This is accurate. But, looking at the current reality, I feel that it's already happened. Leftism has already been redefined; when the average person thinks "leftist," it's SJW lunacy, obama and clinton that come to their mind. There are no mainstream, viable, genuinely leftist forces in the western world; no genuinely leftist parties or politicians to vote for; no genuinely leftist media that can compete with the business-run mainstream. The left has already been pushed to the very ends of society's margins. I mean, this board – this utterly obscure, unpopular, impotent corner of the internet – is the only place in the world in which I see and hear this kind of discussion. Think about that; who or what in the mainstream of society is reflective of this place's general themes? Zizek? Varoufakis? They're well-meaning, but they have no power or influence over the world's destiny. Leftism is already considered anachronistic and unthinkable in this system. Unless we can become more powerful than that system; powerful enough to destroy it; I don't think we have a chance.

...

we do
We know, but OWS → Bernie is definitely a progression in this sense.
You are right, but we will get there eventually. Otherwise we face extinction. Apocalyptic consciousness and so on…
As it should be. The intellectual vanguard is not the proletariat itself. (pic related)
I'm not sure it's "leftism" in general or Keynesianism in particular…
I beg to differ. You sound like someone who has no contact with the ordinary populace. The recession and neo-liberal austerity bailout is felt worldwide!

What's the problem with that? Honestly? The user posts from the position of experience.
No it doesn't.

Yes he is actually. He is running on a platform of Social Democracy but he is in fact a Democratic Socialist.

Then we better get our fucking act together and quickly because the beneficiaries of this discontent are turning out to be Marine La Pen and Donald Trump, not the left.

test