Lemmy_Mouse

If you click on the ">spoiler" I provided context and a link

I wonder if Brian learned anything from this colossal betrayal of trust

Context:

→ “International con-man Brian Becker, another leader in the American anti-war movement, was a part of Muhammad Ali’s visit. His account emphasizes how much the visit was “a threat” to the US government and proved how “negotiations were clearly available as a means to prevent war.” Just because parts of the US government ‘denounced the trip’ does not prove anything at all.

This point is evidenced by a 1995 US Navy paper titled Persian Gulf Hostages: A Case Study in Terrorism, Diplomacy, and Strategy which details the United States hostage policy at the time. It had to maintain the facade of non-negotiation to “be tough on terrorists” while engaging in under the table diplomacy to release said hostages. The paper also details that while the US and UK publicly maintained rhetoric that they would bomb Iraq despite the presence of hostages, this was an empty threat. In essence, the United States needed the hostages released while also saving face. The reality is that these anti-war activists did the work of the US government by taking hard power away from the Iraqi government. This is regardless of whether they were acting on behalf of the US government (although, evidence indicates they likely were). Joseph Wilson notes in the same interview that:

"We were successful in getting one or two hostages out every time, and we would try to load up hostages onto every American who came out. It didn’t make any difference to us. The more, the merrier. If we could get 10 out with [boxer] Muhammad Ali, if they promised us 10 we’d go for 12."

In December, Saddam Hussein let the remaining British and Americans leave Kuwait. We Are The Mighty magazine (affiliated with the US military) praises Muhammad Ali for “freeing the hostages” and notes that he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions.

Muhammad Ali (center) and the remaining 15 American hostages leaving Iraq on December 2nd, 1990.

Saddam Hussein gave up the hostages, his insurance against American invasion, based on lies. In January 1991, only six weeks after releasing the American hostages, under the guise of the United Nations Security Council an American-led coalition would begin a horrific bombing campaign and invasion of Iraq.”

Study and play to your strengths. If you're someone people lean on for help, help them understand the real causes of their misery. If you're someone who is good at math, perhaps create propaganda which demonstrates the math of capitalism and socialism. If you're someone who is popular perhaps educate your peers. Etc...

You are young and likely still requiring essential education and to develop experience. The job of the youth is always learn and socialize no matter what form society takes. Simply apply Marxism to this paradigm 👍

The reason why the healthcare system is parasitic is because it is controlled by the bourgeoisie and so it serves their interests. We must control it or create an alternative and protect it from the state. As per always the creation of proletarian power starts with unionization and organizing a radical proletarian political party. This is the work to be done to counteract, change, or create conditions.

This is why we see so many unionization efforts underway, from Marxists to anarcho syndicalists, to the preexisting labor bureau/aristocratic unions expanding and striking. This conversation has already been had. It's a race to unionize.

A similar race is taking place in the political sphere however this race is much more competitive than the union race. This is because there are many 'false prophets', wolves in sheeps clothings operating so as to sabotage our class' efforts towards liberation.

Digressing, the work is already being carried out, our task is to continue this work and intensify it by building our organizations and thus our class' potential power. For this power to be realized and utilized it must be guided in a revolutionary manner.

CPUSA is explicitly named. Any other org would indeed be covered under colour of law (this law specifically) however it would require a court case to resolve such an invocation of colour of law which is always a gamble.

Depending on how much constitution ours have in OK, challenging such a movement not explicitly named in the referenced law in a court of law could end very badly for the prosecution. However, considering if our efforts were so substantial in OK I would not have to question the constitution of it would I?

Aside from being a gamble, all one has to do is consult law-practicing comrades to create a play list of legal foot dragging to be utilized in each and every single case so as to cost the state as much time and effort as possible challenging every single group from the PSL to the ABCDEFG. Until neoliberalism falls, money is no object to the regime, however this would create publicity for all of the left movements involved, which gives birth to more continuity, as well it would take up space in the legal process which could be used to fuck over our class.

"Reducing racism to ethnic relations and minority needs it to completely ignore racism entirely."

I am not reducing racism I understand as you should that when the relations to the means of production advance, the social relations which maintained the previous mode of production will be shed as the new relations necessitate equality (all share the same class), and so the physical reason for racism to exist has been purged. This is the elimination of racism. What remains are capitalist pre-conditioning which must be combated via education, socialization, and solidarity.

"Race"s do have unique needs, as do sexes and genders. An ethnic minority who has been the victim of racism requires justice, requires a remedy for this injustice on a systemic level, requires protection and expansion of their ethnic cultures which were oppressed and mocked under white supremacy. Just as women require the remedy for sexism, and trans people require social justice and healthcare.

To ignore these needs is to perpetuate the same sort of cultural downfall the Soviet Union failed with and Mao aimed at solving. It is purging the superstructure of the capitalist system and creating the superstructure of the socialist system.

"The existence of municipalities in all former and current European colonies is literally the maintenance of setterism. "

This isn't the maintenence of colonialism, it is the dialectical process of development. The global south is exploited by the social democratic European nations. This is not the same system, it grew out of it and share similarities however the relations to the means of production and the mode of production are different.

"What I missed is your level of ignorance...slave relations were maintained through indentured servitude, through sharecropping, through prison slavery, and through indigenous boarding schools. Second, under Jim Crow and under much of the current legal regime, black workers were used explicitly to appease white workers, by assigning to black workers the most abusive and lowest paying jobs so that white workers wouldn’t revolt"

(proceeds to demonstrate their-own) I have already covered this in my previous reply. You are not taking in the information I am providing. You said it yourself: "black workers were used explicitly to appease white workers, by assigning to black workers the most abusive and lowest paying jobs so that white workers wouldn’t revolt" WORKERS not SLAVES. The means of production were evolved and so the economic relations evolved. I am not saying nor have I ever said that the racist social relations which originated from Slavery went away entirely, I am saying they evolved and no longer govern the process of production. They are inferior to the relations of worker and owner, not that society hasn't retained any semblance of Slavery. This is evident if you look at the overall picture of society and not solely the experiences of minorities in America who experience the effects of the remnants of these relations. It is possible for black Americans to own businesses, there are latino labor aristocrats, etc...this was not possible under Slavery. And yes I recognize the lag between abolition and the Civil Rights movement, but you must also recognize the ability for the Civil Rights movement to succeed under capitalist relations where it could not before industrialization and worker - owner relations developed within the late old system. So again, what are you missing here?

"Calling national liberation of black and brown peoples “fascism” is the most reactionary take I’ve seen from someone who considers themselves a communist. This is usually a position I see from white supremacists. You are woefully on the wrong side of history, comrade."

A strawman..I expect this from Reddit liberals not here.

"The System of Racism created racist people. The System of Racism was created by the bourgeoisie to implement class warfare and extraction of surplus value." That's capitalism you're describing and calling it "The System of Racism". Are you referring to apartheid, a divide and conquer technique leveraging PRE-EXISTING social relations and the new advent of the middle class to maintain power (a form of superstructure OF CAPITALISM)?

"Racism and Slavery and Production INTERPERMEATE. You cannot abolish capitalism and then demand racial reckoning take a back seat on the theory that eventually racism will go away. In order to abolish capitalism you must ALSO abolish the System of Racism, and when black and indigenous MLs write about this, that means national self-determination inline with Lenin’s theory."

Read several paragraphs up. As for the line of national self-determination I agree and this is not contradictory. America and the native tribes are already separate though interconnected countries. America is of land stolen from the latter yes but it is a distinctly separate country as are the native territories despite the capitalist system not respecting them. We can and should talk about changing the size of these nations to be more just but to pretend America isn't a country (in fact) and to conflate it with it not being a country (in terms of historical lineage and of course justice) is idealist. America, the country with the capitalist mode of production and relations, exists today. It should no longer exist and we work towards this goal but to say "it's simply land stolen" is to ignore socialism and aim for communism as the anarchists do. It ignores a vital step of addressing the physical issue of the resolution of that state known as America. And in this resolution, the nation of America must determine it's future as well. One cannot simply ignore the existence of America and the people (workers) who live in it for historical justicial needs of the native territories. And do not conflate this with "you see, the whites will revolt", I never said we would have to choose to maintain America, in fact I have brought forth several arguments as to why I believe the two nations will merge and the cultural roots of the former could be migrated into the new nation (akin to handing the new nation to the natives), however the natives are not currently in a state where they are able to govern a socialist country but they can be.

I see what you are saying I believe, a nation is not a race and so it is not liberalism to advocate they govern. Yes, this makes sense, we must simply train them in Marxism. Yes in the case of the natives it makes sense to advocate they lead. In the case of other minorities this is again necessary so they can ensure justice for their groups specific needs however simply excluding non-minorities from governing because they do not suffer under the modern remnants of slave relations isn't based imo. American workers who are not labor aristocrats suffer under the yoke of capitalism and no longer benefit above the rate of poverty due to their lack of suffrage under the modern remnants of slave relations.

"Racism is literally a legal system whereby throwing black people off a ship in the middle of the Atlantic was not considered murder but was instead considered destruction of property! Literally! Argued in court that legally black people aren’t people and therefore cannot be murdered! It has nothing to do with individual beliefs about people being lesser."

I have been moving forward under an understanding of this premise. I understand what racism is, I'm not a suburban labor aristocrat, I grew up and am still poor, I am white however I have seen racism first hand with friends and family. You misjudge me.

"RACISM CREATED RACISTS" Yes, but Slavery and agriculture created racism. This is what I've been trying to get you to understand. That fact and it's implications.

"They’re not minority workers. They literally constitute the global majority." I'm speaking on national terms. In America they are minorities. I believe we are speaking on America yes?

"They established completely autonomous nation-states for national populations and gave them autonomy over their nation and established the constitutional right for them to secede at any time without penalty. "

This is part of what I was referencing, I simply gave the example of the committees. We must build on the successes of previous worker states in similar situations.

"This is the most white European thing I’ve heard on Lemmy." (continues to use the term 'racial revolution' unironically)

"White people live in places explicitly because they were stolen by white people from melanated people."

I am aware of this. America developed on an injust notion of imperialism. This is why we oppose America and believe it must be destroyed. I'm not sure what notion you are going off of here comrade, I am trying to work with you but you are presenting a lot of misjudgements in regards to me despite my best efforts to demonstrate my positions to you. Much of what we are arguing about we agree on the what just not the how.

"You haven’t even managed to approach my argument, you have no standing to levy this critique."

I've rebuffed your arguments continuously, I believe I do. I have not read anything you have suggested as you continue to demonstrate a lack of fundamental understanding on Marxism. Why would I expand my knowledge outward when you have not satisfied the rudimentary? Why is that necessary if we cannot agree on the process of economic development, social relations under the means of production, or dialectics? This would be entertaining building a roof when the base has not been set.

"This is a liberal metaphysical perspective. They are the same compounds, from the same plants, that have been subject to the same processes of production that all commodities have gone through."

The drug processes have indeed evolved as with everything else but the drug processes of today are not the same as those of yesterday. You've overwritten your own argument.

"The point is that plants that humans have been cultivating for millennia specifically for the effect they have on the human body, whether those compounds are taken in small doses or in concentrated doses, is part of a dialectical process"

Right but as in the last point you seem to not understand the dialectical process. Evolution isn't in a straight line of "better -> best", dialectical materialism holds that contradictions meet and are resolved not according to which is better but which is more appropriate for the conditions of which the conflict occurs. This is why one cannot simply go from slavery to socialism as the material conditions which predeceases socialism are not present yet because this hypothetical system has not developed through the various middle stages of development yet.

Drugs too have dialectically developed, that is taken on features which match it's conditions under the resolution of contradiction but not necessarily taken on ideal characteristics for their assigned social role according to the needs of our class - safe and beneficial consumption. Instead they have taken on characteristics which match the economic mode of production under which they must conform to - consumption to satisfy competition within the market. As we know quality has been forgone for quantity to satisfy the rate of profit's ever growing needs, and as such our commodities have become less and less satisfactory to our needs as a class as this is not our system, we do not control it and as such we are not it's designers nor it's primary beneficiaries.

"the unique biochemistries of individual humans"

This is nonsense. Morphine does not act as a cognitive enhancer on some humans, nor does testosterone develop wings on some humans. There is variance yes but the underlying effects of memory displacement (which is well documented and is not my personal belief on the matter) is universal by high majority.

"What the fuck are you talking about? You think the DRUG causes this? You think the bourgeoisie are out there being like “ooh, let’s give people pot because it pacifies them!” You are ridiculous."

Yes I do and your retort to this argument is the only thing that is ridiculous here.

"A crutch IS an aid!" A crutch is no more an aid than "racial revolution" is at being legitimate Marxist position to aim towards. The phrase means to differentiate an aid that assists and an aid that transfers dependency from the individual's abilities onto the aid itself to perform the job. This is a well-known phrase also.

"You are literally saying you would rather people suffer so that they can be more revolutionary"

You should read reform or revolution and various critiques on social democracy. This is far from a niche or odd concept within Marxian history. The key point is "suffer more" not "suffer in general", suffrage is subjective, one can claim if we are not all under socialism we are suffering, and this would be true however materially social democracy has only served to impede revolution it has never once lead to it. As well, to whom are we measuring suffrage of? The imperial core with it's ability to create a privileged middle class to the suffering of the world proletarian class as a whole, or the relief of suffrage of the entire proletarian class? Which you concern yourself with determines if you are a Marxist or a Menshevik.

"Why do you think people use these types of drugs?" Poverty, of which only socialism can alleviate.

"It’s like you haven’t even bothered to analyze the world before you start pontificating about your morally superior position based on “logic, reason, and the countless video evidence”. What is wrong with your ability to self-critique? Why is it so broken?"

Yet another dodge of my points for preference of liberal ad-hominism. This shows your inability to utilize Marxist theory to engage in productive debate among your peers. Once again I advise you study further.

"People use drugs because they are suffering." No, this is a distortion of concrete for subjectivity. Poverty is why people use drugs, suffrage to the point of poverty, not suffrage in general.

" You don’t solve that problem through criminalization, You solve that problem by address the root cause of their suffering and by providing support for people suffering from addiction."

Considering I agree and always have you've clearly stopped listening.

"You’re such a boss. Your only argument against drugs is that it impacts productivity. You’re the worst Marxist I know."

You're clearly not a sufficiently capable Marxist as you still participate in debate as a liberal. Yes this debate has been long however refusing to recognize when one has dug past 6ft is no excuse in my book, at that point it only invites the inevitable conclusion.

You lack a solid Marxist foundation as I've had to explain basic Marxist line such as the path towards revolution and other aspects from other arguments we're currently in but are irrelevant to this present one. One must put aside their ego and look towards the best solution for the working class, which is following the most revolutionary and scientific theory available - Marxism.

The drugs cannabis, psilocybin, coca, and opium have been used for a long time in medicine and religious practices this is true, however cocaine, heroine, LSD, and condensed cannabis such as dabs or keif have not. These are not the same drugs of yester years.

As well, we have created medicines which surpass these in their abilities to aid in medicine save for cannabis. My personal issue with cannabis is it's negative effects on memory, it's diverse methods of activity which vary from positive to negative depending on the person's necessity vs what they are consuming, and ultimately the drug's tendency to create a pacifist and deradicalized culture around it which damages revolutionary capability within our class. Basically, it works too well; it becomes a crutch as opposed to an aid. This is not in every case, many can consume cannabis without an issue however one cannot deny the prevalence of this culture nor the tendency cannabis in general let alone condensed cannabis has towards pacification within a certain percentage of users.

This is the primary issue with hard drugs, one cannot function as a member of society while high on cocaine, mushrooms, heroin, etc... If one doubts this statement please refer to the countless video evidence of workers too high to function which is available on mainstream platforms for consumption.

Hard drugs (those which are so potent either in their action and/or their addictive properties) impair and greatly reduce a worker's competency and indeed traps the worker into a vicious cycle of addiction. One cannot be seriously defending hard drug use.

Now there is a separate question in your response - what is to be done regarding workers and drugs. You seem to be under the impression that I am advocating we simply ban drugs and not treat the underlying addictive disease, this is not at all what I am advocating. I agree we must treat the worker with permanent concrete solutions to relieve them of their susceptibility to addiction. I am saying that as Marxists, we should not encourage hard drug usage. That we meet the worker where they are if they are indeed addicted, but not to encourage further drug usage, instead assist them in getting clean.

Suggesting that a more educated person including a government decide what is and is not safe for the consumption of their society of which they are assigned to oversee is in no way chauvinism, this is an anarchist argument which is a pette bourgeois tendency - the rejection of class for individual politics.

This is not true. Placing race above class is liberalism. I am incorporating an understanding of ethnic relations and the necessities of minority workers into my analysis, to promote this any further would place identity or race above class relations which again is liberalism.

One cannot be a settler when one has not settled or currently maintains the relations of settlerism. This is because after the Civil War, slave relations were abolished and the economy evolved to worker-owner relations under bourgeois democracy. I have already explained this, I'm unsure what you've missed on this.

"It’s necessarily both, because if it’s one or the other, it’s neither. If you don’t have a racial revolution, meaning a changing of the power holders, then what you imagine is a socialist revolution will be born as a fascist revolution. "

We are saying the same things however you misunderstand "racial revolution", this would be a fascist revolution.

"The way that production was developed was through racism" No, you have it reversed. Superstructure (such as apartheid or other racist laws) serves to reinforce the base (economic relation to the means of production). The system creates racists, racists did not create a racist system.

Back in slavery times, the mode of production was crafted to serve the needs of humanity. A hierarchy was crafted and so were "lessers". This became racist the same way imperialism does - one values their herd, their family, their nation over those of whom they do not share an intimate relation with. These modes of production necessitate expansion and as is demonstrated by imperialism today, and so they necessitate intimate and foreign to be compared within the minds of those within said system. "White" people were not born racist, the material conditions following the dialectic process of development created the idea of racism as well as created racists.

"The solution must be a racial revolution - that is replacing the power structures of today with new power structures, and that must be proletarian AND colonized AND women, intersectionally. If it remains white and man and colonizer, then the resulting structure will incorporate the structures of racism which are literally inextricable from the structures of capitalism."

We are Marxists, we are not liberals. We promote and select leaders based on merit, not based on their identity or racial terms. This is because socialism itself is a system which promotes and is made of merit. Capitalism is a system which superfluously promotes various products to reach an ideal profit and then collapse and repeat the process (such as white supremacy, black supremacy, LGBT supremacy one day, etc...). Of course we must incorporate the needs of minority workers, however this should be done as it was in the Soviet Union, through ethnic councils whose membership consistency and purpose is to address the needs of minority workers. Of course all laws must be made with consideration to the needs of minority workers as well, my issue is with the idea of appointing someone based on their ethnicity, sex, gender, etc... and not on their merit.

And you really must drop the term "racial revolution", it implies a revolution based solely on race alone, of which you clearly do not aim for.

"You are completely ignorant of race. Race’s don’t have unique needs. Races don’t have a base. They exist only in the superstructure."

...You have critiqued yourself while referring to me, you do realize this don't you?

"And all of these destructions result in harm to white people,"

I believe we've found the root cause of our disagreement. Show me the laws or actions which treating "black" Americans worse than they treat "whites" makes a net positive for "whites". This a false paradigm following a zero sum game. The bourgeois do not treat "white" Americans better because they treat "black" Americans worse, they simply treat "black" Americans worse however we are all living in hell as workers (and not labor aristocrats). They are more oppressed however this does not mean that "white" workers are not oppressed, this is exactly what the democratic party emphasizes, that only minorities in America are oppressed and not workers. This is IDPOL. This is liberalism selling us minority supremacy, another product to profit from (check all of the blm gear and rainbow merch floating around).

Marxists reject this analysis of reality (individualism) and this methodology of action which is a critique which is safe for the power relations: "We simply need more minorities in power and all is well". I believe you understand the necessity for the end to reflect both economic and cultural evolution from revolution, however some of the specific details are still being viewed through a liberal framework.

Thank you for sharing this. Black Americans are forced down the race rabbit hole because the settler whites (MAGA, the middle class, the racist pigs, etc...) drag you down it. I understand you see things as race for survival. Do you recognize that the slavery economic mode of production from which their terror originates has passed and we are in the capitalist mode of production and with it capitalist relations to the means of production?

This means that the only escape from this terrorism this racist tyranny, is through a working class revolution. America has never had a feudal mode of production. It is likely that if we were to go the way of barbarism here at the point of capitalist crisis instead of socialism, we could very well see slavery come back. This being the backfoot of the bourgeoisie is likely how these settlers still persist similar to how the remnants of the Russian Empire (White Army) persisted in Soviet Russia.

I cannot simply waive my mouse and like magic this contradiction of needing the non-black working class and not trusting the non-black working class will be resolved. I simply as that you listen to the points I've made. The rest is a matter of struggle and solidarity within our class.

Thank you comrade

Browns combined the right and the left into a political leadership over the country, Shea is speaking of bolstering the anti-war movement's numbers and thus power with the right instead.

"that “these people aren’t interested in liberation, they’re only out for self and for kin.”"

This is not how he comes off to me but you are entitled to your opinion.

"I am still not convinced that concepts like Haywood’s Black Belt Republic aren’t the direction my folk should be going in"

Black Americans do not have the numbers to accomplish such a task as a Black Republic and hold it without the US bourgeois state along with the Canadian lapdog seizing the land back. This just isn't realistic. If you want your people to be free, socialism is the best way to achieve such goals because it takes into account the interests of all workers equally. It does not cater only to the needs of black workers, no, however this is not something Marxism aims to do.

"definitely won’t long-knife y’all when your usefulness is through”, that tells me that your movement is predicated on anyone else’s sacrifice but your own, and leaves me considering you as deeply unserious to the point of being literally hazardous to any oppressed folk in your orbit."

I understand your distrust however I remind you that even utilizing race relations analytics defensively is still viewing the world on terms of race. Marx shows us that method of analysis is useless, it is one which serves to create and then re-enforce capitalism.