Excrubulent

Excrubulent , 4 days ago (edited 4 days ago)

She'd be a very successful candidate no doubt, if the DNC allowed it. You've seen how they did Bernie and he's an old white guy. I can't imagine them going for AOC. They're a fundamentally conservative organisation that exists to vet candidates and prevent anyone with the will to make "actual change" from being in a position to.

Also, they've argued in court that they are not a democratic organisation. They can block nominations entirely unilaterally, to one of the only two parties that can realistically field a presidential candidate. The other party is much more openly corrupt, which is a genuine achievement.

The US electoral system is entirely captured by corporate interests.

Excrubulent , 4 days ago

You're assuming the DNC even wants to win.

They are a corporate machine with a lot of the same donors as Republicans. Their job is to provide a nominal resistance to the oligarchy, not actually win, govern, or fix things. That's why they don't want Bernie who is not on board with their mission. He was so popular his ideas dominated the primaries, so the DNC pulled out all the stops to keep him from winning, because it would've been very hard to maintain their soft obstructionism with him pushing on so many issues from the bully pulpit.

This is part of why I think you actually should vote for the Dem candidate as long as they're not the raging fascist that Trump is - they don't care about your protest vote or whatever. They will just lose, shrug their shoulders and start fund-raising for the next season where they will continue to be the only viable option because of deeply entrenched structural obstacles to any alternative.

Excrubulent , 5 days ago

It just occurred to me how absolutely accurate it is that the cops are holding the line defending the small number of Nazis from the counter-protestors. They also have that cop who hates the Nazis just like everyone else, but he's still doing his job keeping everyone back, which is also pretty accurate.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

"Centrist" only if you use the sense of a median popular political position, which isn't really what it means. Self-described centrists are actually conservative and tend to be weirdly* okay with Nazis.

*weird if you don't understand the link between capital, the state, conservatism and fascism

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

They're doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.

In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn't really a thing.

Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago (edited 8 days ago)

You might want to consider that those who call themselves leftist may not actually be leftist.

For instance, "Nazi" is short for "national socialist". They are clearly right wing, however, if you pay attention to their actions.

So-called socialist states are generally deeply repressive and that is not left wing. They were better at branding than the Nazis, but for instance the USSR neutered the soviets - the workers' councils after which the state was named - very soon after taking power. The state owned rhe means of production, not the workers. It was state capitalist. After that workers had to strike just like under any other capitalist regime, and they were brutally repressed by the state.

Under no honest description of socialist does that qualify. So they failed on both the "Soviet" and "Socialist" parts of their name.

Horseshoe theory is just capitalists happily buying into the USSR and other state capitalists' self mythology about being socialist because it's good propaganda to scare the workers they rule over into believing that there is no alternative to neoliberalism's stochastic brutality.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Wow, what a rational, level-headed response. You sure showed them.

Everyone here thinks you're the reasonable one. We all take you more seriously now.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Just take a moment to bask in the notion that "it’s pretty plain you’ve never been to Portland" without any clarification implies that actually they do constantly bump into hippies that say, "I’m Antifa and I hate Jews!” or at least something along those lines.

This is so unbelievably unhinged. I honestly think it's bad to remove comments like theirs, because they show so clearly how wrong that person is.

Even claiming they live on the coast as if that explains anything is just playing right into the Fox News canard about "coastal elites" which itself carries antisemitic undertones.

They're being so vague about it, I assume because they live on "THE COAST" and it's all just so intense and self-evidently evil that they are completely incapable of giving any specific details whatsoever.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Something worthwhile like "stfu moron"?

You can't be this un-self-aware.

Actually no, I've seen how you talk. Obviously you are.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Ah yes, name and address, clearly what I meant by specifics. I certainly didn't think it would be reasonable to specify the specific behaviours you've seen and in which contexts.

No no, a city and the notion of racist antifa, that's all anyone needs to take your word for it. I trust you.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

You actually think this is convincing literally anyone? Be honest now, I really want to know, do you think you look reasonable to anyone at all here?

Like you can claim that you're the only sane person here all you want, but do you really think this performance is doing anything good?

For what it's worth, I really do think it's good that you're saying this, because it shows anyone who's watching just how vapid, toxic and hateful you are as a representative of the "antifa are the real fascists" crowd.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

That's it? Just "anti fa and communists talk about jews"? You think that's anything?

What could I possibly want to know beyond that?

Oh gee, I dont know, maybe literally a single thing that they said? Maybe what was happening at the time?

No no, too much, I could dox you with that, obviously.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Tell me what they said. Give me just one single quote.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

I think that's projection, and I think anyone reading can see it too.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

You came in so strong and now you're just bitching out.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Really, what did they say?

Excrubulent , 7 days ago

No no, keep bitching out and showing what a fool you are. It's great.

You said you're not my servant but you really do seem to be obligated to reply, like you apparently can't stop.

Excrubulent , 7 days ago

Ownership means having power, having control, over the thing you own.

An authoritarian government that maintains control over the means of production, no matter how much they nominally "belong" to the workers, inherently alienates the workers from having power and therefore from ownership. In that sense it is state capitalist.

You cannot have it both ways unless you change the meaning of words like "own", or "authority". Your own description of leftism precludes authoritarian methods.

Excrubulent , 7 days ago (edited 7 days ago)

Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.

It's not a long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

Excrubulent , 7 days ago

Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their "geographical area of birth".

It wasn't a very long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

Excrubulent , 7 days ago

The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.

It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.

Put those two together, in context, like you might do if you could read things, understand them and infer basic meaning, and that's actually very clearly what you were saying.

In case you can't follow it because for example you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said: you said I divided people into good and bad by race, then you corrected yourself and said my prejudice was based on geography. That prejudice was clearly established as believing in good and bad people.

You're right, that really wasn't hard, because you absolutely did say that.

You clearly don't have anything honest to say or you'd have said it. You're 0 for 3 on actually saying something that makes sense yet. I don't hold out hope for future comments.

Excrubulent , 6 days ago (edited 6 days ago)

Motherfucker you came at me with a challenge to a position that I clearly didn't have, and your "apology" was obviously a snide attempt to make a second equally ridiculous accusation.

You also said I "voiced prejudice". (EDIT: In fact, you called it an "accusation", your words, so it wasn't some academic detached notion that you were attacking, it was my conduct directly) Now, if that's meant to mean something other than you accusing me of racism or whatever "geographical" prejudice is, go for it. Explain yourself.

I never said anything prejudicial towards any group. Once again, if I did, fucking show it. Explain your working.

So far I am working off of vague insinuations and technical "well ackshually"s from you. If you have something to say, fucking say it.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Isn't it weird that the country being invaded has a lot of older soldiers joining the fight to defend their homes and children? Almost like invading a country and being invaded are two entirely different things that can't be easily compared.

Are you actually a tankie for modern day Russia? Are you actually trying to defend them? You know they're just capitalists, right? Like they don't even pretend to be socialist anymore.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Oh yeah, just out of context statistics that don't actually relate to what was being said but just so happen to imply that Russia is better in this regard.

If Russia is running out of young men, that's Russia's fault.

If Ukraine is running out of young men, that's Russia's fault.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Okay what?

Okay you agree?

Okay you're being dismissive?

What was the meaning of your statistics? Explain yourself.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

I'll take this as an admission that you have absolutely nothing to say, or at least nothing you care to say openly.

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Okay.

Excrubulent , 11 days ago

Rather it was the people using the new system to settle old scores or for personal advancement.

Lenin, Mao, et al look at how many people had gotten into the party entirely for the purpose of abusing their positions for personal gain.

How was that allowed to happen? Did they build a system of oppression that was ripe for takeover by petty tyrants, some of whom became actual, fully fledged tyrants, whilst simultaneously shutting down the mechanisms by which workers could have power over their own lives?

This isn't about whether Stalin personally gets into heaven, plus the absurd strawman that people think he did anything personally shows a complete lack of systemic thinking, which was ironically one of Marx's great contributions to political thought. It is about whether the systems we build are liberatory or oppressive.

The State is Counterrevolutionary

Excrubulent , 11 days ago (edited 1 day ago)

There was no dictatorship of the working class. They defanged the Soviets - you know the workers' councils that the USSR was named for.

You don't have to watch a video, here's the script text for the entire series:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary

MLs love reading, don't they? Oh but wait, that's anarchism. Go ahead, tell me it's beneath you and I should read On Authority. I have. It was underwhelming to put it nicely.

And yes, the system they built was on the back of and patterned after the authoritarian monarchist regimes they followed. That's not a favourable light to put that system in. Was it marginally better than a monarchy? Sure, why is that relevant to anything? We live under neoliberal regimes of which none to my knowledge has ever been toppled by an ML revolution.

That ideology is centuries out of date. Anarchists saw its downfall before it started. It's failed.

Even if you're combatting some bizarre strawman about absolute dictators, it's equally bizarre that your response is to attempt to rehabilitate Stalin's character. That puts you squarely in tankie territory.

Excrubulent , 11 days ago

Assuming you're trying to ask what that term means, it's short for Marxist-Leninist, it's a polite way of referring to tankies, where you accept their rebranding of what is effectively Stalinism. It was after all Stalin's term to coopt and puppeteer the legacy of two dead men to give legitimacy to his reign of terror. They will try to tell you there are principled MLs but if they think there is any merit in the concept then they are doing the same kind of historical revisionism that all tankies do.

And you can see this person was in fact clearly trying to defend Stalin, if only indirectly.

Edit: Also look at the username - they're from lemmy.ml, where the .ml is the Mali country code but in this case it definitely also stands for Marxism-Leninism. It's a tankie instance.

Excrubulent , 11 days ago

Oh yeah, that is confusing lol. Glad to help :)

Excrubulent , 10 days ago

I gave them the text as published on the anarchist library, but they didn't seem to appreciate that either. It's almost like they just don't want to learn history that isn't their revisionist version of it.

Excrubulent , 10 days ago

The frustrating thing is that most of it was CIA propaganda at one point in time, it just happened to also be true, which made it much more effective propaganda. It's a big gift the USSR gave to anti-communists.

Excrubulent , 11 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

Yup, see the person below you saying almost exactly that in more clinical - but clearly sincere - terms.

Edit: When I say they are "sincere" that is not to say there is any merit to what they are saying. I'm pointing out that they actually believe this garbage is justification for the mass slaughter of children.

Excrubulent , 12 days ago (edited 12 days ago)

They didn't lose the support of 12 out of 12 jury members. You're lying about something we can all see right in front of us. This verdict proves you're wrong and is a massive win for this movement. So weird that you chose this story to get on your high horse about.

Also terrorism? To who? Petrol pumps?

Excrubulent , 11 days ago

It seems like it probably was. Since none of their defences were allowed, then the jury had to simply decide factually whether the acts occurred. "We didn't do that" is one type of defense, so it stands to reason they didn't offer that defence and the acts themselves weren't disputed in the case.

This article says specifically that:

[The court] has ruled that mass loss of life from climate breakdown and the government’s failure to act on the science are irrelevant to the circumstances of an action, for the purposes of the defence of consent to damage to property. That is – protesters deeply-held and factual beliefs are no defence.

So the defendants weren't saying they didn't do it, and why would they? It was a demonstration, and claiming it never happened would defeat the purpose.

So that means that as a simple matter of law it's open and shut. They admit they did it, and they don't have any legally allowed defense for their actions. However, the jury are judges of fact, and the only way they can find them not guilty is if they determine that actually no they didn't do it.

That flies in the face of the cases presented to them, so it has to be jury nullification. I assume there was someone in the jury who knew about that loophole and informed their peers.

I don't see any mainstream outlets reporting on this - shocker I know. The neoliberal hegemon isn't going to want people talking about this, because they avoid jury nullification by just not talking about it and implying in court that the jury has to follow the law. If this news starts to spread and people start talking about it, it's going to get harder and harder to find juries that don't know about nullification and then these acts are going to get very hard to prosecute in a way that is seen to be legitimate.

Excrubulent , 11 days ago (edited 10 days ago)

This should be a claxon in the ears of the ruling class that they are facing dire consequences in the near future if they don't change shit like yesterday.

Jury nullification is powerful partly because you need to get a group of 12 strangers together who have been vetted to remove bias, to all unanimously agree to say, in effect, "fuck the law". The more people realise this is an option, the more it will happen, and the more it happens the more it will become obvious that we are being screwed and our oppressors want it to happen. They should be shitting themselves right now.

Instead nobody's reporting on it, not even the centrist style conservatives, and the very wealthy have clogged their ears with reactionary rhetoric that will stop them hearing the alarm until it's far too late.

Excrubulent , 12 days ago

Yes, I know that. And it's supporting the deck by the USB port, so essentially holding the whole thing up by a handful of small solder joints on a PCB, which if they break will pretty much brick the entire thing.

I don't know what pointing out the adaptor is supposed to change about this situation.

Excrubulent , 12 days ago

If there's a stand that I can't see then yeah, I guess I misunderstood. But if not then it would be taking some of the weight. That in itself might not be a huge issue until someone or something accidentally puts undue force on the deck. It's like looking at a glass on the edge of a table. It's not broken now, but I'm gonna move it away.

Excrubulent , 11 days ago

Okay, I think I can see it, sorry. I was tired last night.

Excrubulent , 12 days ago (edited 12 days ago)

Holy shit, you're still pretending you're not a tankie. Not a tankie, but you chose the name volodya ilich, which is a deep cut about Lenin's childhood nickname.

And you're still pretending you don't understand what was wrong with your posts. Who are you saying this for? Do you actually think anyone believes you? Is this an elaborate troll? I wish I knew but this is beyond parody. If you are doing parody: you didn't make it obvious enough. I'm so sorry.

Excrubulent , 12 days ago

You said they pinned "fuck tankies" to the sub. (Not an instance btw)

You know the sub is called "de_ml"

You obviously know what it's about, that's part of your point, that it's an anti-tankie sub. But then you want to have it both ways.

Who are you trying to fool?

Excrubulent , 11 days ago

“de_ml” implies pushing against ml

So you can understand then why posts about the crimes of British and US imperialism are off-topic there, right?

Like, I don't expect much here, but you've given me this little hint that you could in theory understand if you wanted to. I don't think you do though, do you?

Excrubulent , 10 days ago

Yay I can go to heaven now 🥰🥰😇😇🙏🙏

Excrubulent , 8 days ago

Uh... those are exactly my politics. I think this is just a misunderstanding about a few word definitions. EDIT: Actually, based on your talk of "candidates", maybe we don't have the same politics. I don't know, read what I have to say and judge for yourself.

I just happen to consider building prefigurative movements to be "breaking the system" and "revolution". They just aren't necessarily one big moment of rupture. Meeting people's needs, doing mutual aid, community self defence etc, is weaning them off of dependence on capital and the state, and it is a revolution in the sense that it is a transfer of power away from the dominant system, even if it is slow, even if it is only about giving people food at first.

A sledgehammer breaks the pavement, but so does a root.

We can expect that when we do these projects, if they become successful enough, they will threaten to displace the enemy system entirely, and that will involve a violent reaction. That may entail a moment of rupture, but that's one step in the middle of it all. Whether something better comes out of it depends on whether the things we've built beforehand are strong enough to survive that moment. But don't kid yourself, we can't avoid violence entirely, even if it's only defensive.

Now, the EZLN and Rojava and a bunch of other projects had their moment of rupture, and they were liberatory. Not perfect, certainly, but they are doing incredible things and they don't have centralised leadership. The way you talk about them being "small cities" when they are large contiguous regions makes you sound ignorant of existing projects and demanding to see something "bigger than 10 million" makes you sound dismissive, like you're a liberal defending capitalism.

I'm glad you're not, I'm glad you're on board with prefiguration, but it is as destructive to the enemy system as it is constructive of the new. When you build the new in the shell of the old, the shell breaks.

Excrubulent , 5 days ago (edited 5 days ago)

Hey, just letting you know I've finally sent you an account request, I hope the offer is still good! I'm sorry it's taken me so long - life has been kind of crazy the last couple of months.

Excrubulent , 4 days ago

Thabks so much!