So Democrat Cops of America is ruled by the Jacobin Magazine clique known as Momentum. Their current caucus is called Bread and Roses. As far as I understand, they are Kautskyites rather than Leninists. I am relatively new to the left and only vaguely understand the revolutionary Leninst model.
How does it differ from Kautskyism and how does that affect the practical strategies Democrat Cops of America will take of the "Marxist Centrists" continue to dominate both nationally and locally in major chapters?
That sucks. Though I do believe a return of radical social democracy could be useful.
I take it as a vehicle to meet up with different kinds of leftists since its multi-tendency platform allows for many different types of socialists to interact with one another. I, and neither should any comrades who decide to join, don't believe its participation in bourgeois democracy will result in anything as long as its succdem leadership continues.
Literally read State and Revolution and WITBD.
Jacobin published an article explicitly defending kautskyism which got a fair deal of attention, in effect triggering and dabbing on every leninist.
lmao, i thought kautsky was just some whack nibba in the dustbin of history that got memed on in state and revolution
Lenin actually still recommended some of Kautsky's early books. There was a reason he got such a great reputation at first.
that's not to say Kautsky didn't suck ass later on.
He was but then Americans who got woke on Capitalism but are still too scared to actually be communists because their grandpa who got stabbed by a gook in Vietnam might get mad at them or their dad who owns a "small" business and paid their way into Petite-Bourg University might be upset so noe they're trying to make kautsky cool again to justify not actually doing anything to end capitalism
it's too bad the left is garbage at optics and unwilling to rebrand. Twitter ☭TANKIE☭s could learn a thing or two from the alt-lite.
Are you saying kautskyism is good you little faggot
kautsky was faggot, but you aren't going to marxpill people by fetishizing long dead dictators
Yeah cuz we can't marxpill people without making them read 3 times as irrelevant social democrats who themselves wouldn't even agree with the mediocre welfare capitalism the people using his work as a shield are shilling for
I love this stupid "Yeah x thinker is just a stupid social Democrat but if you don't make people read them you automatically have to convince them Stalin was cool then you lose!"
According to Paul Mattick, by the end his life Kautsky was so far gone as to abandon reformism, putting a "Marxist" spin on laissez faire ideology:
Other highlights include a book vigorously defending his theory of ultra-imperialism (free trade peace theory), seemingly disproven by WWI right, right before the start of the bloodiest war in human history.
All these books are still untranslated, so it's possible Mattick is cherrypicking (though I doubt it). I wish someone would translate them just to see how bad revisionism can get, that and there has to something of value in those 3000+ pages of late life Kautsky work.
It is par for the course for a reformist party tbh. I am shocked that everyone ITT is
Anyone calling himself a Kautskyite is either confused or a liberal in disguise.
The Democrat Cops of America has been having debates about Kautsky on their member only forum. The Jacobin/Momentum/Spring/Bread and Roses, and whatever they'll call themselves later have been supporting Kautsky.
They argue that Leninism works in autocratic states like Tzarist Russia. While Kautsky was theorizing under conditions similar to a modern bourgeois state.
Why is ultra-imperialism wrong? It's the dominant geopolitical paradigm since the end of World War II. Capitalist states have been cooperating for decades.
Marxist centrists are the best read reformists.
What significant change happened after World War II that allowed for this "cooperation"? Was the founding of the United Nations? The UN is almost as toothless as the League of Nations it replaced. Was it the U.S. dominated international monetary system, Bretton Woods etc.? Closer but that still fell apart after less than 25 years. The real thing that changed in 1945 was the invention of the atomic bomb. One bomb on Hiroshima was able to kill over 100,000 people. Less than 10 years later the US tested its first air-droppable hydrogen bomb, Castle Bravo with a force of exactly 1,000 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb.
The driving force of imperialist war, capitalism, still remains. The only reason we haven't had a World War III yet is because nuclear weapons, with the potential of ending hundreds of millions of lives in a single day, have upset the profit calculations of the war planners. Read the attached PDF, the US strategic command estimated that 115 million people, nearly one in every two citizens, would die in a "countervalue" strike on the Soviet Union in the first day. Naturally, the response to the threat of mutually assured destruction is not to avoid a nuclear war but to attempt to "win" it, dumping hundreds of billions into new weapons to achieve the dream of a "decapitating counterforce first strike", or at least the ability to threaten it during in imperialist confrontations in the periphery. You see this today with the withdrawal from the INF first-strike missiles treaty, or the renewed drive for "missile defense" that can protect from the "ragged response" after a US first strike.
The international institutions and arms control agreements created after World War I did not prevent World War II, or "replace imperialism by a holy alliance of the imperialists", to quote Kautsky. The failure of revolution in Germany led to a war that killed over 40 million people. In the face of a thermonuclear World War III which could threaten the future of humanity itself, we cannot afford to make Kautsky's mistake again.