RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]

  • 197 Posts
  • 238 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
























  • Again this is the problem, you can’t separate the then from the now, that’s not how history works. The democracy you support isn’t different then the democracy that exists “right now”. The foundations of the democracy you support creates the conditions for the democracy you don’t support now. They are linked through the development of history and through the crisis of Capitalism. There is no returning to some idealized version of American democracy that you support because it doesn’t exist. It only exists in your mind, as a figment of your imagination, built from the memories of times where “politics” didn’t impact your life. For millions of Americans, this is the America they know and have always known.



  • See, this is part of the problem; you have a very shallow understanding of the material realities of the places you are implicitly criticizing. You also have a very narrow view of what “Democracy” is and how it should function, as well as a very misguided definition of Fascism. This kind of muddying of terms is what leads to conflict. When two people attempt to communicate in what is obviously the same language, yet there is a discrepancy between the depth of understanding of the words and concepts being used, it can become nearly impossible to effectively communicate.

    If you want to get a primer on the world view, a go-to suggestion is always Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (about a two-hour read). Though you could also read something like The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels, Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein, or Why Marxism? By R. Day for something more modern. If you do not want to read, that’s fine. I’d suggest Michael Parenti’s “Yellow Parenti” Speech

    The reality is, our current systems and institutions are hardly Democratic. This was designed from the onset by the founding fathers, the landed class of colonial settlers, but I won’t speak for the likes of John Adams; I’ll let him speak for himself:

    May 26, 1776

    It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the [agreement] of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must [agree] to every act of legislation?..

    Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who [are poor and do not own property], are also [unfamiliar] with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? …Few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest.

    Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level.

    From the onset, all voting rights beyond rights for the propertied class of America were won through struggle and concession, often violent struggle. We live in a class society, where one class dictates to the other how life will be and how things are going to work. Only through struggle against the propertied class has the working class gained anything. If you want a little taste of what I’m talking about every day, check out A People’s Calendar. All states are a form of dictatorship because all states uphold class society; it is which class uses their dictatorial powers that must be changed.

    The institutions you hold so close could even remain intact. A four year voting cycle, even with an electoral college and a supreme court, the only thing that would change is which class is deciding which people fill those roles and to whom their activity benefits.


  • Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism

    That is a quote from J. V. Stalin and his writing entitled Concerning the International Situation:

    Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.

    Please don’t hesitate to read the whole text; it should only take you about 40 minutes to do so. This isn’t some phrase that manifested out of thin air. It has historical context, and it is still applicable today. As I have come to describe the situation in the states, Democrats are the carrot, and Republicans are the stick. Democrats trod out small concessions or the hope of small concessions, while the Republicans meet no resistance in their aim to roll back reforms. As some liberals have taken to calling it, “The Ratchet Effect.” There is more to this, however, because the Republicans being the stick means that they are also the disciplinary wing of the two-party system. They are given the tools they need under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and when the poor get a little to uppity, the Republicans (being the heel to the Democrat’s face) use their power to punish anyone trying to make real change. This is why people are so “heightened” when Trump is in office, because they do the dirty work. If Democrats did the same, there would be no release valve in the system, no “calm waters,” but during those calm waters sections of the government (such as ICE) get increases over increases in a bipartisan way.

    But none of this is conspiracy in the traditional sense; it isn’t closed-door agreements and secret handshakes. This behavior is born out of the root cause of the issue, which is the belief that private property must be maintained above all else and that private property must generate infinite growth. In the context of the post you’re referring to, these concessions being made by Mamdani are the result of the Democratic operators having control over his campaign. He has to align with their interests, both foreign and domestic. His messaging is being pulled to the right to align with the Democrats. This alignment process is what keeps us in the system we have today, where nothing seems to get done and things only appear to get worse.