Revolutionary to Liberal pipeline

How do you explain so many radical-minded people in the US turning to electoral liberalism eventually? Why, in their older age, when they have seen the routine tides of bourgeois elections, do they end up believing in them and supporting them?
Is Marxism-Leninism basically incompatible with the US?

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720 92.89 KB, 93.6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes. The USA must be destroyed by any means possible.

death to all marxists! Not Socialism is the only working socialist model…. suck my cock fags>>2643720(USER WAS SENT TO SCHOOL FOR THIS POST)

Attached: bender.jpg (479x344, 37.23K)

Who let in the tween?

They didn’t read enough Marx.

Im an american council comm who believes ML is highly incompatible with US. America needs a luxemburg, nagy, lukacs, or a pannekoek more than a Stalin

Also this

Marx endorsed electoralism in tandem with other tactics. Even the Bolsheviks ran for the constituent assembly.

It's easy to become a liberal if your understanding of politics is based on emotional submission to a daddy or whatever instead of based on reading theory and building an understanding of the system as it actually functions.

And? The difference is that their political horizons didn't begin and end with electoralism.

They were never "radical-minded" in the first place. They were always neolibs who appropriated ML vocabulary to appear like a radical, without ever having to take the difficult steps of actually being a revolutionary. These people lead marches and talk tough on tv, but then leave the march and go to a 5-star comped dinner with the head of corporations and government agencies. Lmao you really think millionaires like Spike Lee don't secretly want the status quo maintained and republican politicians so his taxes are low?

That’s true, but imo there’s nothing wrong with using electoralism. Explicitly denying any one tactic seems to me to be an unnecessary handicap.

The USA's foundational myths and documents form a religion. People don't realize it but the US is essentially a "secular theocracy", it's actually quite interesting. What I mean by this is, the USA has the appearance of being an areligious country due to the tolerance of multiple religions and, more recently, the tolerance of a large number of nonreligious people.

However, America itself is a religion. The Declaration and Constitution and figures such as Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and later ones like the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, Ronald Reagan, etc, are all Saints. One of the most important rituals for the American religion is the voting ritual or the electoralism ritual.

See, from its inception and from each individual Americans birth, it has been relentlessly pounded into their heads that no matter their religious, political affiliation or economic/racial background we are all Americans and all have "equal opportunity" under the American system. Therefore, it's very hard for even more Leftist minded Americans to think outside of the box of Americanism. Chris Hedges is a wonderful example of this. His analysis of America is not a scientific deconstruction of the flaws and contradictions inherent in its social and economic systems but rather a perpetual eulogy for an America that was "lost". If you read his book "Death of the Liberal Class" Hedges doesn't actually explain how to move forward or use the death of America's liberal class to advocate socialism, he simply laments its death and shames those who he deems responsible for it.

The vision of America Hedges constantly eulogizes is really a perfect model for how most American Leftists and left-liberals see "socialism" working in the USA. See, in the aforementioned book, Hedges constantly references the old school American labor movement, the IWW, Eugene Debs, and the golden age of the CPUSA, but not because he agrees with their vision or their goals but because their existence and tolerance helped cuck the Democrats of the time enough to create the first comprehensively American welfare state. Hedges argument is essentially that if the Keynesianism of the New Deal had have never been touched and the American "Deep State" (for lack of a better term) had stayed sufficiently small and not been allowed to pursue the Red Scares and Cold War propaganda, the social upheavals of the 60s and 70s would have resulted in a perpetually progressive. He even goes so far as to blame the existence of the USSR as such for the death of this version of the American dream, because if "true socialism" had been allowed there Stalinism wouldn't have happened and thus the USA wouldn't have felt so threatened by Russian "imperialism" and so on.

Basically the American Left in the 21st Century is largely just a left-liberal deviation of the American religion. It believes that the foundational ideology of the country is essentially good no matter how relentlessly it critiques the praxis carried out to advance said ideology and thus doesn't want communism but a perpetual social democracy which tolerates radicals and their orgs/parties and even allows them participation in government if they want it. The irony of course being that since radical Leftists must destroy every last trace of the American religion, due to it being essentially 100 percent capitalist/liberal in nature, this left-liberal deviation of Americanism will eventually have to crush it as it did in the Red Scares and then blame the victim, which is the very thing "Leftists" such as Hedges bitch about.

Attached: eyeroll.jpg (640x628, 37.92K)

Bolshevik electoralism meant voting for Bolshevik candidates—not a liberal party.

And more to this point see how the majority of anti war protesters went about criticizing the war in Vietnam. While there was a large Leftist sect that wanted an end to imperialism and self-determination for Vietnam, the majority of those in the movement were against it because "our guys" were dying. There was never one instant of consideration of the lives of the Vietnamese or economic domination, they were just simply upset that "our guys" had to die "for nothing" which implies that if LBJ (and then Nixon) could have cooked up a sufficiently decent explanation for why we had to go to Vietnam and stay there, everyone would have been on board with it. This sentiment still exists in what is left of the movement in today's America, with the majority of antiwar organizing until very recently being a constant crying out about "the troops" dying "for nothing". Its why said movement was almost completely obliterated under Obama, because the left-liberal deviation saw him as a Saint sufficient to demand sacrifice and tribute.

Attached: it never ends.png (1070x601, 507.22K)

Last point and then I'll stop posting but this is also why the majority of "opposition" and "resistance" in the Trump era constantly talk about how Trump is "unfit" to be President and literally spend every day attempting to psychoanalyze him. Their issue with Trump isn't that his cabinet is simply accelerating the process of American imperialism that's existed probably since the creation of the nation, it's that he's not a "good" Saint that he is "demeaning" the holy office and besmirching the name of America.

It's literally how Catholics react when a Pope is chosen who does the same horrendous shit the Catholic Church has always done but more out in the open (or for Rightist Catholics, tries to hard to hide it such as Pope Francis has done). It's not that we have to fundamentally restructure or perhaps even completely destroy the Church on every last level and create something new, it's that the Church "isn't perfect" but it's "the best church we got" and if we could just simply get rid of the loser corrupting the Sainthood the Church would go back to functioning "correctly" and even self-improve.

Eh, not really. Maybe back in the 1950's they did, but I was always drilled with "equal access" and "equal protection under the law". I never heard anyone say "equal opportunity", or if they did, it was in realtion to "equal access" - meaning no one would be denied access to something like the market or schools for immutible factors like race. It's a bit dramatic, and perhaps a little disingenuous, to suggest the average American even thinks about politics and US government outside of a red team vs blue team sportsball game.

It's almost like liberals aren't revolutionary communists or something…

Wow dude trivializing everything I said across three posts to "haha liberals r dumb xD" sure "refutes" what I said you incompetent faggot

It's people like you who ruined the quality of discussion here

This is not a peculiarly American phenomenon. Pics related are all leading Blairite politicians and also former Marxists. As for why it happens, I don't know. Simple defeatism must have a lot to do with it but that doesn't explain things like the war in Iraq, which all these guys supported.

Attached: reid.jpg (460x288 84.16 KB, 17.3K)

Those who succeed in a bourgeois system have no incentive to abolish it. Elected officials depend upon their position within the government to receive their salary which creates a direct conflict of interest with the political goals of workers who they supposedly represent. The classic case in point was the betrayal of the socialist movement by the socialist leadership itself on the eve of the First World War. The leaders chose to support the war efforts of their respective countries rather than denouncing the war as an imperialist adventure with no benefit for the working class. Millions of workers were put in uniform and marched onto the battlefield to die because their elected representatives sided with imperialism.

The lesson from this (which was already written about prior to the betrayals of the 2nd International above), was that the old state needed to be disbanded prior to establishing a new workers' state. The conclusion drawn by Marxists was not to abolish the state as a matter of principle but as a necessary step towards creating a state under the control of the workers themselves. The famous "withering away" of the state was something that would happen long after bourgeois politics and bourgeois states had already been discarded.

Bourgeois state -> Revolution -> Worker's state -> No state

Lenin wrote about this in-depth in State & Revolution.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

Attached: cockshott_directdem.png (646x510 45.4 KB, 147.59K)

When Lenin argued against anti-electoralism he meant that Communists, *if they already have an established and electable party*, should not reject participation in bourgeois democracy out of hand. He didn't mean that Communists should vote for the Cadet Party to tax kulaks 1% more and reduce beatings for peasants, just because "there is nothing better yet". For most of us there is no political vanguard in sight so we should focus on creating one over everything else, and while we don't have it electoralism is pointless. It may be useful in the future.

I'm really falling behind on his videos.
I got a couple of raspberry pis to set up and my data plan is over the limit.

Spike Lee used to be pretty radical before he joined the hollywood bourgeoisie
I doubt Hedges or West get five star dinners, they were both vilified for not praising obama

this is painfully accurate

Attached: deadass.jpg (800x699, 64.01K)

Is there absolutely no communist party participing at elections where you live?

There is but it's a joke. Like most communist parties in the developed world.

They shift from revolutionary Marxism to electoral Liberalism because both theories are founded upon Enlightenment values. Fabian Socialists have long understood that electoral Liberalism can accomplish the same goals, just on a longer timeline. Revolutions often fail, or worse invoke a counter-revolutionary backlash.

Attached: 12th Century Looney Tunes.jpg (636x456, 55.46K)

Because most people grow out of communism.

No political ideology has ever adequately addressed apostates. They all just pretend they don't exist and prefer to ignore their critiques.

There are plenty of Marxist who managed to do movies without becoming a bouj. The problem with spike lee is the problem with most of the american black nationalist… You like to use them as poster boys but they are as shitty as all you other cocksucking gringos in that country. A couple of good one don't take away the fact that they are trash

I told ya liberals are communists, they are the same goddamn thing, it's even the same on this board, people are just being in denial.

Do you have an actual question?


ML is only thing that makes sense for US. There is an immense amount of decision-making you need to handle, as well as significant anti-Socialist undercurrent.

Toothless and disorganized council-communism (stop trying to hide behind Rosa) can't provide neither organized violence to protect Revolution, nor administrative will to turn the wheels of American economy.

Getting people here to fine with a socialist state in the united states is already a tremendous step, let alone a socialist state run under the ideology of the exact form of it supported by rheir deeply culturally engrained enemies for decades. People in this part of the world are heavily engrained with the idea of a country that claims to give them some democratic choice. (We both are aware of how true this actually is) At least having a little bit more democratic forms of socialism post revolution would get more people to accept it, rather than a theory developed under the material conditions of a country that had centries of despotic rulers.

And deeply exclusive, centralized, undemocratic comittees have a history of becoming hives of corruption that revisionists in the right positions of power caused to erode away. ML styled vanguards have proven to provide protection, for a time, until all the initial people loyal to the cause die out.

Critiques of Marxism are addressed all the time. No one cares because anticommunism is objective truth in the Western world. Main Currents, for example, is still a common reference for Marxism, despite the fact that even non-Marxists have strongly criticized it.

why would you be a straight white male and to the left of Julius evola in 2018?

might as well get it over with and shoot yourself now instead of waiting for the day when your PoC ape comrades eat you alive in the town square

Fantastic. Let's have another Paris Commune, only have an order of magnitude more deaths when this crypto-Liberal shitfest implodes.

Soviet model was the most democratic of all forms I know about.

Your pseudo-Marxist wordsoup is unpersuasive.

Exist only in your brainwashed imagination.

This is new I admit

"Those who betrayed us were nevrer one of us."
(Zizek thru Robespierre)

Black resistance in the US naturally found its expression through grades of subcultures. Some of them 'resisted' thru pacifist means (thanks, MLK), some thru misguided 'nationalist' means (thx, early Malcolm X), and so on. For many, aligning with the USSR was a way to identify with the USA's most hated enemy: "these crackers hate me. Who hates these crackas?!''

This is not a testament against their personal qualities, mind you. These people were brutalized, they needed a point from which they could resist.

The challenge is two ways:
1) How to revolutionize ppl without an alternative (USSR);
2) How to streamline them to read a fucking book in order to clear way in their minds for their liberation.

Because older people are not fit for revolutions, when you have kids, jobs,relationships and families you provide for and have to put at risk the thought of revolutionary action becomes unappealing to you and you hope that the system can be changed non violently.
Happens a lot in my family, MLs who were part of revolution when they were in 20s are now liberals/socdem when they get older.

I dont like jews, niggers, and homosexual people.

They get wealthy and content.
Are you implying that this is a phenomena everywhere? In the 20th century, nearly the entirety of the French intelligentsia turned their backs on Marxism and went right for little other reason than to keep their "celebrity philosopher" status. Not many have the constitution of Marx or the Bolsheviks and can hold firm even in the face exile and imprisonment. For many, merely the threat of a fall from grace in polite society is enough.