#Political Theory

[benjaminallhope-fulltimemind]

My random thoughts about milk.

I know most people think it's ridiculous but honestly milk and the various alternatives to it are a clear sign of capitalism and exploitation. Not many people think about or care about the widespread exploitation of cattle to harvest milk for everyday use, even then people dismiss alternatives to this industrial scale exploitation for a wide variety of reasons often fed by capitalist propaganda and misunderstanding. It really shows the capitalist realism that grips most people, to them they can't understand or really conceive of a system that doesn't entail widespread exploitation of other living beings and they look down on others who can see and try to achieve systems that don't involve it. Just my random thoughts.

[pumpacti0n]

"...The Anarchist case against the State is pretty simple to put in Marxist terms. You have your dictatorship of the proletariat. But immediately there's a problem. The state is not, and cannot be the entire class. In order to have a state, you have to put a subset of the class in charge. Call it a vanguard, a party, what have you. Let's assume for a moment that the new party really is comprised of the proletariat and isn't composed of nominally allied intellectuals. Even in this best case scenario what you have is representation, not actual rule by the proletariat as a class.

"Well ok," says the Marxist, "that's not a problem, the representatives will just represent the interests of the class as a whole." But instantly you have a problem, your dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, it's a dictatorship of the representatives of the class. For the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie this doesn't matter, because the incentives of the state align with theirs and you can be a member of the bourgeoisie while simultaneously holding office, in fact almost all representatives are.

But for the proletariat this is not true at all, the moment a proletarian take(s) control (...) they are no longer part of the class with no property, they have at their command the property of the state. This problem is exacerbated by any attempt to use the state to socialize the economy, the larger the share of the economy administered by the State, the more property the representatives now command.

Those representatives of the proletariat in the State now have their own interests: that of the management of the property of the state, that of the nation state itself, formerly alien to the proletariat as a class.

Furthermore, each passing day isolates the representatives from the proletariat itself. It isolates them physically, it isolates them psychologically, it isolates them in terms of mannerism and expectation.

And so every day the interests of the representatives of the proletariat drift further apart from their representatives until one day the dictatorship of the proletariat vanishes entirely and you're left with the dictatorship of an entirely new class produced by the State.

And this is the BEST case scenario, the one in which the representatives of the class are genuinely attempting to do their job. And then still the form of the state devours the dictatorship of the proletariat, that which was once its content. The state will not wither away because its existence produces new classes with their own functions and interests.

Lenin's State and Revolution demonstrates this problem: it calls for the state to become the landlord of the proletariat. Immediately, in a single instant, the pretense of the State as a special armed body of the class disappears. In its place is a new class of rent connectors whose interests have nothing in common with the proletariat.

This is just how the State works. The proletariat has nothing in common with the tax collector, the landlord, the manager, the planner. All of the functions of the old world absorbed and preserved by the State coalesce into new classes and socialists are left spinning their wheels, trying to abolish two systems, the State and the class system, with an institution (the State) that reproduces both of them.

Even on a theoretical level, even in the world of State and Revolution, where every state employee is paid a worker's salary and nothing more, the State would still produce classes and with it reproduce itself. The only solution to this is to destroy the State entirely and let the class as a whole form the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is Anarchism. The propertiless masses rule themselves directly and destroy the property relations and the State institutions that comprise the conditions of their own existence as a class, thus ending at long last the nightmare of the class system with the new and radiant dawn of the classless society of communism."

[source]

[love-your-neighbors]

Democrats irritate me because they're mean. Republicans irritate me because they use my God to make their political statements.

[theoretical-mutant-4734]

rage against the machine, or

Monday afternoon collaging

[cripple-punk-dad]

Oops :(

I would like to formally apologize to the Leninist-Marxist community for being a stupid working class idiot who read the theory 'wrong' and made a comment on how useless theory is without taking tangible action. I will now go guillotine myself for preaching anti-intellectualism by saying you should throw bricks at cops more often than you sit in a cushy home library reading. I also apologize for saying that being able to access theory and understand its uniquely dense academic language is a privilege relegated to those who have access to higher education and the time off work to study it. Apparently that was incorrect. its my bad for saying that only reading theory and not doing anything about what you read (like maybe fuckin sharing what you read and understand with others) was bad.

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that intersectionality hurts or advances activism; for example let's say a climate change organization calling for a ceasefire?

Both.

In its positive aspects, intersectionality is grounded in reciprocal solidarity. It is an ideological and philosophical position that we are all connected and "no man is an island, entire of itself...Any man's death diminishes me/Because I am involved in mankind."

It is also a very pragmatic understanding that there aren't enough of us to win on our own. In addition to the concrete analysis of political struggle that we all share common enemies and have overlapping interests, the fractured nature of human society and identities means that coalition-building isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

In its negative aspects, intersectionality results in this weird, toxic narrowing of social movements to a point where only the most oppressed people possible are allowed to be in charge and make decisions and speak for the movement, and everyone else is a guilt-ridden privileged outsider who needs to shut the fuck up and lower their hands and listen and not make it about them - but only after they donate their time and money.

This is pretty much the opposite of what intersectionality was originally meant to convey: the whole point is that everyone exists in different positions on the various axes of oppression, discrimination, etc. (and these positions can change pretty damn quickly), and thus depending on the issue, certain people might have more of a lived experience and need to be listened to and have greater needs and need to have their agenda items prioritized, and who those people are going to be is fluid and dynamic rather than fixed.

And this brings us back to my earlier thing about reciprocal solidarity. I completely reject the notion that I exist within social movements solely as an ally to other people, because in truth I participate in these movements in no small part because I need help from other people on a whole host of issues. However, I remain in coalition when it comes to other issues (especially those in which my personal constellation of intersectionality puts me in a position of relative privilege), both out of a humanistic understanding that their lives and needs are equally important and out of that pragmatic understanding that if I help them on their stuff, they'll return the favor when it comes to my stuff. And over time, the experience of being in coalition will expand people's mindsets on issues that don't directly affect them and get them to act in solidarity more consistently.

And that's what I think is so good about social democracy and similar movements that have a comprehensive political "line" or policy agenda, because if we sit down and engage in good faith in democratic coalition-building negotiations where everyone understands what they are getting and what they are giving and that everyone gets a say but not an exclusive one, then we short-circuit this kind of toxic, self-destructive behavior and can move on to doing the work that needs to be done.

[valenteal]

Platonic Democracy of Naboo

Officially the Naboo government is both Monarchy and Democracy.

This is a misconception.

Naboo operates under a system I would label as a Platonic Democracy. Platonic in this case referring to the Ancient Greek philosopher not a friendly relationship.

See, on Naboo kids with a potential aptitude for governance are identified early and go through a specialized program that teaches them the skills they need and gives them learning opportunities. There’s a heavy emphasis on Naboo’s history and culture as well as ethics and morality. The candidates are free to leave the program if they feel it’s not for them. Once they graduate they begin running for office. While all the candidates have similar backgrounds, experience, and qualifications their political views still differ. In this way Naboo insures that they always have competent leadership that is still too young and idealistic to be corrupt.

[troythecatfish]

[thatpinkobooknerd]

Workers Rights: Earned in Blood

(A Brennan Lee Mulligan style rant)

Oh, you think the working class has gotten a single goddamn thing in history by asking nicely? By politely inquiring, “Excuse me, sir, might I have a livable wage? Perhaps a lunch break where I don’t have to inhale toxic fumes? Maybe, just maybe, you could stop shooting us when we say the word ‘union’ too loud?”

No, never! Not once! The people who own the mines, the factories, the railroads, the land, they do not care! They will squeeze every last drop of labor from your body until you’re a lifeless husk unless you—WE—make it so that it costs them more to keep squeezing than to let go.

Let’s talk about Blair Mountain. You think those miners took up arms against the coal barons because they were just so excited to reenact the goddamn Civil War in West Virginia? No! It was because the company stores kept them in debt, the mine bosses kept them in danger, and the law—supposedly an institution of the people—sent goddamn Baldwin-Felts thugs to evict their families at gunpoint when they tried to unionize. The government, the one that’s supposed to protect its people? It bombed them. Dropped literal bombs on workers whose crime was demanding a wage that let them eat.

The police? Oh, buddy, let’s talk about the cops. Pinkertons, Baldwin-Felts, private security goons, modern union-busting consultants, whatever branding they slap on it, the job is the same: to break strikes, to keep capital safe, and to crush solidarity. The cops weren’t called to keep the peace when workers at the Pullman Company went on strike. No, they were there to break heads and break ranks—to make sure the workers stayed scared and divided. Hell, half the time they don’t even tell the strikebreakers—the scabs—what they’re walking into! They lie, they manipulate, they recruit people desperate enough to take a job without knowing that it means crossing a picket line until they’re already there. And when tensions boil over? When violence happens? It’s never the bosses who get their skulls cracked open.

You cannot ask capital to be kind. You cannot politely request that the billionaire class develop empathy. You think Andrew Carnegie accidentally let the Homestead strikers bleed out in the streets? You think Jeff Bezos forgot that his warehouses are sweatshops? No. They choose profit over human life, every time, and the only reason they ever back down is when we—the workers, the people who actually make the world function—force them to.

So yeah, history proves one thing: solidarity works. Strikes work. Direct action works. And the only thing that doesn’t? Asking nicely.

[st-just]

I also think it’s interesting to think about the history of apartheid in an age where right-wing authoritarian movements are again on the march. Apartheid was a reactionary reassertion of a racial order that was beginning to come undone. Although capitalism was partly responsible for the decline of that order, Afrikaner nationalism and apartheid did not seek to replace capitalism with another system so much as make sure it worked properly for certain people. Apartheid, although was enforced with violence, was first instituted within the framework of liberal democracy, albeit with a severely limited franchise. It’s helpful to look at examples like South Africa as we broaden our understanding of far-right politics beyond the imaginary of “fascist coups.” With recent attempts to stigmatize and punish LGBT people as well as the frightening consequences of criminalizing abortion, it’s worthwhile to think about how even extreme repression is possible within a constitutional and legal order and may even require it for the regularity of its enforcement.

-John Ganz

[orccock]

rec me leftist theory

who here has leftist theory recs. please my crops are dying

i've already read and enjoyed capitalist realism by mark fisher, and im looking through some reddit threads on this theme, but recs from tumblr would be more than appreciated.

(the one qualifier i'll enforce is that to rec it you have to have read it/have to be in the process of reading it yourself)

[love-your-neighbors]

Let's be honest. If the US government had just left Trump and Musk alone then they wouldn't have gone on this revenge quest. And is the Left hadn't pushed everyone so far, they weren't have voted for him.

If Trump hadn't been impeached, accused of every crime ever, and stopped from talking on every social media platform, he wouldn't have cared. He became president the first time for funsies. Most people were completely fine with you living however you want to, getting representation, and being out in public spaces, until teachers were taking their kids to strip clubs.

(Note that I don't blame most of the LGBT community as I know most of you probably realize that you shouldn't take young children to strip clubs without their parents knowledge or presence, no matter what they see. I wouldn't approve of it even if they went to see a Bible play because you don't take kids to strip clubs. I mostly blame plants- sorry, "activists", most of which probably aren't actually in the community.)

[just-ray]

Guys I'm literally buzzing around rn like I LOVE POLITICS I LOVE POLITICS uyhhhhhjhhg I try and act all high n mighty sometimes like as if I'm so educated n shit NO I am NEURODIVERGENT !!!.,,

[zillanovikov]

anarchist tumblr, recommendations for books/blogs/&c. about decision making process that aren't:

A) heirarchical (boo)

or

B) concensus (what a beautiful idea, what a terrible reality)

?

[within-stars]

Nerd Arrogance

noun

The preemptively assumptive nature of being smarter than the party they’re taking to no matter the subject.

DISCLAIMER: This is a specific genre of person whose nerd status is the permission they give to themselves to enable their own malicious behavior. This is not a critique of nerds as a whole.

This allows for critique of their media or worldview to be “just not getting it”.

It is the self identification of the “nerd” status that allows for them to see themself as being “misunderstood” instead of being correctly critiqued.

It, in its entirety, is entitlement. Nerd Arrogance is a shade of it. It’s like entitlement to the feeling of being right. It’s like being right has congealed with their sense of self. They interact with the world as if they themself being smart is a stated fact.

It’s this ideology that allows for nice guys and incel forums. and its correspondence with the rise in right wing populism leads me to believe that this is the same entitlement that drove manifest destiny westward.

That inability to digest critique at its core is gluttony. Gluttony to exist within comfort. Gluttony to be saved from facing yourself.

That is what white supremacy at its core is. Gluttony of a group of people to be saved from facing itself.

[wiserebeltiger]

One of the main outcomes of cancel culture is the realization that we need a healthy and accurate “court of public opinion.” Between locking someone up and letting them go scott free, people collectively need to be able to analyze a situation and determine, drawing on knowledge of abuse, psychology, and emotional intelligence, who is really in the wrong and to what degree; what likely happened; and what a just punishment (if deserved) should be. To what extent should this person’s reputation be impugned?

In short, the mob needs to mature. To learn how to think. So that at last it can start to govern itself.

Without being derailed by obvious narcissism, immature judgement, etc.

Fortunately, this seems to be happening.