This is a legitimate point, but Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have something to say about challenging capital through elections. Chavez in particular tried both violent and non-violent means and only succeeded with the latter.
Either of them are infinitely more successful than any leftist movement in the U.S. Dismissing the methods of some of the most recent leftists to have gained real power is absurd.
Losing the URSS and the rest of countries was a disaster
Absolutely; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I'm saying is that -- post-USSR -- we have examples of leftists gaining power through elections.
How anyone can reach this conclusion is beyond me. Bernie -- not even an unusually strong candidate -- was the clear frontrunner in the primary until he got kneecapped by unprecedented (and lucky) Democratic coordination. They're not too strong; eight months ago they were all getting their asses beat by an old man from a state most people forget who had to build a political base from scratch.
Would be doing better if they didn't let far right fascist parties and movements grow in power and internally sabotage the gains made under the socialist government. You'd think leftist parties in latin america would have learned the constraints of this type of democratic socialism after Allende and everything else.
The point is they can't just remove them. But they've held on to the gains they've made and have good organization and have the military on their side and so on. It's not about "learning the constraints", it's about learning what you can actually accomplish within constraints that you have no way to push past.
Sure they can, and its why ML states have had better success in maintaining these gains without constant internal opposition and sabotage. How did Chile hold onto those gains? There's been a constant internal conflict in Venezuela between these two opposing class interests and parties for years now, its barely holding on under this current system. Bolivia did everything right and they still paid the price for it in the end. This is a repeating failure of upholding this liberal democracy and basing your gains on electoral strategies that do not work to resolve the internal class contradictions and opposition movements.
Well, no. They didn't purge the military (probably because they couldn't). In Venezuela, the military is on Maduro's side. In Venezuela, they have a 3 million member militia. But that doesn't mean they can just start kicking out liberals and fascists, because they don't have the kind of international backing to do that. The US would just invade (with bombs, not necessarily troops) and destroy the entire movement, which is probably what Biden is planning on doing.
I mean the US has already invaded and directly worked on destroying socialist movements in virtually every country in latin america. But also Cuba is literally right there lol, the conditions vary but the history of latin america has shown how much is wrong with this democratic socialist approach and the idea that upholding liberal democracy is the correct approach.
Non-violent paths to power are only available in colonized nations, where the national bourgeoise will split from the comprador bourgeoise.
In the imperial core there is no split and there is no non-violent path to power. Due to America’s position as hegemon and empire it cannot transition to socialism peacefully.
You say all this as if it's written in stone, but in reality no one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core. We certainly can't afford to ignore the most accessible and most visible levers of power (electoral politics) when we don't have the infrastructure to do anything else.
you say this like we just got dropped in the middle of nowhere with no understanding of class mechanics or history and just make vague obfuscatory statements that further mystify and forestall action
How many socialist movements have succeeded in the imperial core?
Read all the theory you want, but know that people in your same shoes have done that for decades, have tried to act on it, and have all failed. Every single one of them. Most socialist states outside of the imperial core ultimately failed, too. Existing theory should be thoroughly re-evaluated because looking globally there's enormous room for improvement, and looking only at the imperial core it's worked exactly zero times.
Defeatist revisionist nonsense detached from reality and history and the real proletarian movement. I’m really tired of your libbery in every thread, twisting and defanging everything you can touch. People like you have done this since before Marx, you aren’t some new brilliant type of leftist you are the oldest and most failed type.
GDR was an actually existing socialist state in the former imperial core. Ireland got very close. France got very close on several occasions. Italian communists were strong but destroyed by fascist violence and their inability to fight against it adequately. The Spartacus uprising got very close. The closest we ever got were all violent paths to power, and those that failed would have succeeded if the reformists like you got on board instead of betraying the proletarian movement
Non-violent paths to power are only available in colonized nations, where the national bourgeoise will split from the comprador bourgeoise.
unfortunately mariátegui was correct to point out that there's no relevant national bourgeoisie in countries that were created by colonizers, it's all compradores
so that's not a viable path for places like latin america
There is absolutely relevant national bourgeoise in colonial states, are you even aware of the class composition of the Chinese, Venezuelan or Algerian anti-colonial socialist revolutions for instance? The national bourgeoise played a large role in all of these.
i said this precisely so that you could deduce places like china weren't included
and i have no idea how it is for africa, but the venezuelan bourgeoisie is made of compradores. there will be exceptions obviously, but not enough to constitute a single, separate class
i mentioned mariátegui because he's kind of one of the founders (if not the founder) of latin american marxism (as in marxism specifically targeting latin american material conditions), and his explanation of how our bourgeoisie developed from this colonial origin (as opposed to merely a colonial past like in china) makes them essentially compradores
bear in mind, i'm not glad that this happens to be our case, because it makes everything that much harder for us, so if you find a way to show me mariátegui was wrong it'll make me a little less hopeless. most communists around here agree with him though, because it becomes very obvious when we see the discourse and attitude coming from our capitalists - it's just like mariátegui describes, they lack national identity and always show a profound contempt for our culture and history, and have a weird sort of pride in their subservience to imperial interests, acting like geopolitical PMCs (think PMC liberals sucking off billionaires - they think they're the same kind of people, it's really sad)
i imagine algeria being vastly muslim helped them with this, because it's a clear identifier to contrast against the colonizer's culture
This is a legitimate point, but Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have something to say about challenging capital through elections. Chavez in particular tried both violent and non-violent means and only succeeded with the latter.
Yeah!, and look how well their legacy is doing, oh wait shit
Losing the URSS and the rest of countries was a disaster, even for the scabbiest scabs from the imperial core.
Either of them are infinitely more successful than any leftist movement in the U.S. Dismissing the methods of some of the most recent leftists to have gained real power is absurd.
Absolutely; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I'm saying is that -- post-USSR -- we have examples of leftists gaining power through elections.
Yes, I get it, but the motherfuckers are too strong.
How anyone can reach this conclusion is beyond me. Bernie -- not even an unusually strong candidate -- was the clear frontrunner in the primary until he got kneecapped by unprecedented (and lucky) Democratic coordination. They're not too strong; eight months ago they were all getting their asses beat by an old man from a state most people forget who had to build a political base from scratch.
its entirely delusional to think Bernie was ever going to win or that real change could come from such a thing
"I lost so that means I never had any chance at winning" = :cope:
i'm sure voting will work next time!!!!
You are the one who still believes in electoralism after what we witnessed. Who is the one coping and in denial again?
That's easy; it's you
Actually doing pretty good all things considered.
Would be doing better if they didn't let far right fascist parties and movements grow in power and internally sabotage the gains made under the socialist government. You'd think leftist parties in latin america would have learned the constraints of this type of democratic socialism after Allende and everything else.
The point is they can't just remove them. But they've held on to the gains they've made and have good organization and have the military on their side and so on. It's not about "learning the constraints", it's about learning what you can actually accomplish within constraints that you have no way to push past.
Sure they can, and its why ML states have had better success in maintaining these gains without constant internal opposition and sabotage. How did Chile hold onto those gains? There's been a constant internal conflict in Venezuela between these two opposing class interests and parties for years now, its barely holding on under this current system. Bolivia did everything right and they still paid the price for it in the end. This is a repeating failure of upholding this liberal democracy and basing your gains on electoral strategies that do not work to resolve the internal class contradictions and opposition movements.
Well, no. They didn't purge the military (probably because they couldn't). In Venezuela, the military is on Maduro's side. In Venezuela, they have a 3 million member militia. But that doesn't mean they can just start kicking out liberals and fascists, because they don't have the kind of international backing to do that. The US would just invade (with bombs, not necessarily troops) and destroy the entire movement, which is probably what Biden is planning on doing.
I mean the US has already invaded and directly worked on destroying socialist movements in virtually every country in latin america. But also Cuba is literally right there lol, the conditions vary but the history of latin america has shown how much is wrong with this democratic socialist approach and the idea that upholding liberal democracy is the correct approach.
You guys are talking about two separate things here:
The same approach might not work for both problems.
Would be better if they had a violent revolt and purge of the bourgeois elements within their government
Non-violent paths to power are only available in colonized nations, where the national bourgeoise will split from the comprador bourgeoise.
In the imperial core there is no split and there is no non-violent path to power. Due to America’s position as hegemon and empire it cannot transition to socialism peacefully.
FUCKING WORD exactly what happens ib my country when lucky winds blow
You say all this as if it's written in stone, but in reality no one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core. We certainly can't afford to ignore the most accessible and most visible levers of power (electoral politics) when we don't have the infrastructure to do anything else.
you say this like we just got dropped in the middle of nowhere with no understanding of class mechanics or history and just make vague obfuscatory statements that further mystify and forestall action
How many socialist movements have succeeded in the imperial core?
Read all the theory you want, but know that people in your same shoes have done that for decades, have tried to act on it, and have all failed. Every single one of them. Most socialist states outside of the imperial core ultimately failed, too. Existing theory should be thoroughly re-evaluated because looking globally there's enormous room for improvement, and looking only at the imperial core it's worked exactly zero times.
Defeatist revisionist nonsense detached from reality and history and the real proletarian movement. I’m really tired of your libbery in every thread, twisting and defanging everything you can touch. People like you have done this since before Marx, you aren’t some new brilliant type of leftist you are the oldest and most failed type.
GDR was an actually existing socialist state in the former imperial core. Ireland got very close. France got very close on several occasions. Italian communists were strong but destroyed by fascist violence and their inability to fight against it adequately. The Spartacus uprising got very close. The closest we ever got were all violent paths to power, and those that failed would have succeeded if the reformists like you got on board instead of betraying the proletarian movement
You mean the state that was invaded by the USSR, occupied, set up as a satellite state, and that ceased to exist when the USSR ceased to exist?
You mean the formerly-colonized state where today every multinational is setting up an HQ to avoid taxes?
Still not hearing any successes.
unfortunately mariátegui was correct to point out that there's no relevant national bourgeoisie in countries that were created by colonizers, it's all compradores
so that's not a viable path for places like latin america
There is absolutely relevant national bourgeoise in colonial states, are you even aware of the class composition of the Chinese, Venezuelan or Algerian anti-colonial socialist revolutions for instance? The national bourgeoise played a large role in all of these.
i said this precisely so that you could deduce places like china weren't included
and i have no idea how it is for africa, but the venezuelan bourgeoisie is made of compradores. there will be exceptions obviously, but not enough to constitute a single, separate class
i mentioned mariátegui because he's kind of one of the founders (if not the founder) of latin american marxism (as in marxism specifically targeting latin american material conditions), and his explanation of how our bourgeoisie developed from this colonial origin (as opposed to merely a colonial past like in china) makes them essentially compradores
he gave a good enough sum up in 1929, you can see it here
bear in mind, i'm not glad that this happens to be our case, because it makes everything that much harder for us, so if you find a way to show me mariátegui was wrong it'll make me a little less hopeless. most communists around here agree with him though, because it becomes very obvious when we see the discourse and attitude coming from our capitalists - it's just like mariátegui describes, they lack national identity and always show a profound contempt for our culture and history, and have a weird sort of pride in their subservience to imperial interests, acting like geopolitical PMCs (think PMC liberals sucking off billionaires - they think they're the same kind of people, it's really sad)
i imagine algeria being vastly muslim helped them with this, because it's a clear identifier to contrast against the colonizer's culture