• ICBM@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    Idk. You need like half the voters voting for you to become President and there can only be one President.

    And that’s not even accounting for a bourgeois “democracy”, in which no challenge to the ruling class interests would ever be tolerated. Loooong history on that to look at. Ask Allende about moderate social revolution through elections. Ask France about strategic electoralism. 80% of the US could vote for Claudia and she would still never take office, one way or the other.

    Revolutions against the bourgeois class are won from the end of a gun and by no other means, otherwise we’re submitting to a state monopoly on violence designed to be used legally against us.

    • Red_Scare [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      This!

      Also, when I need to discuss “change through burgeois electoralism” with libs I love sharing this interview:

      https://web.archive.org/web/20240930111014/https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/1934/10/h-g-wells-it-seems-me-i-am-more-left-you-mr-stalin

      It’s so perfect; it’s a reputable Western newspaper so you can share it in almost any setting, just preface it for plausible deniability with something like: “It’s a hilarious read, one of the greatest modern liberal intellectuals debates a genocidal maniac throthing at the mouth!”

      Libs love the idea and usually swallow the bait expecting funzies, they looooove them a stuck-up Brit “talking truth to power” and handing out “hitchslaps”.

      And then Stalin absolutely demolishes Wells and it really fucks with their world. Wells says FDR’s New Deal will bring about socialism in the USA and Stalin’s like nah cause the economy is in the hands of capitalists so at most you will get some concessions which capitalists will keep fighting to revert. Stalin’s arguments are so clear and concise, and his predictions are so plainly correct, while Wells is just being confidently wrong and terribly smug about it.

      I had some success with it too, including one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, “Stalin was right” which are the three words I would not expect a lib utter under any circumstances.

      • ICBM@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, “Stalin was right”

        • Red_Scare [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          They meant that specific interview of course, not Stalin in general, and they’re as left as libs come. Still couldn’t believe my ears.

          • ICBM@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Thanks for the link. I’ve only read one of Wells’ books and had never considered whatever his political views were. Even good science fiction tends to intertwine with very disappointing politics. Wells takes so many giant Ls here, not least of which is to fingerwag at Soviet success for its revolutionary necessities, which I’m sure would have been apparent had he been there to experience those conditions. He seems to imply he would have simply debatebro’d the Tzar into accepting some reforms. I get the impression Wells was convinced Keynesianism was some new higher and evolved form of socialism, which has to be the biggest L of them all.

            • Red_Scare [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              I know, so many Ls! 😂

              Wells keeps pointing at random butterflies and going “Is this Socialism?” (like, FDR is building offices and creating govt agencies in the US, isn’t that the same thing you’re doing in the USSR?) and Stalin keeps patiently explaining…

              When Wells confuses technological progress with Socialism he sounds like a proto-techbro lol. He genuinely thinks all you need to do is convince technical intelligencia to become socialists and then intelligentsia will “organise” the rest of society, as simple as pressing a button.

              My highlight is probably when he critisizes JP Morgan for only caring about profits and then goes on to praise Rockefeller and Ford as the kind of capitalists who would help bring about socialism… Of course both were instrumental in creating Nazism instead, Rockefeller by supporting eugenics “research” in the 30s Germany and Ford by supporting NSDAP directly and with such fervor that Hitler wanted to make Ford the leader of the fascist movement in the US.

              • ICBM@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Wells keeps pointing at random butterflies and going “Is this Socialism?”

                Fuckin Keynesians, man. I hate how rehabilitated that shit has become when talking to libs.

                To that last bit, I found that remarkable too. Stalin seemed to have a such greater bead on what is happening in the US than the “plugged in” armchair intellectual who came all that way to sing the praises of misunderstood capitalism, and to specifically name some pretty grotesque people as champions. He points to the expansion of a capitalist state bureaucracy under FDR that produced the USMIC which functions as the largest anti-communist force on earth. Hmmmm… maybe socialism is not just about people having jobs? It really would have been the cherry on top if Wells had brought up how Germany just started organizing under a new “socialist” party…