Zompist Bboard Again

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:19 am

As AOC says, one of our best hopes is precisely their incompetence and stupidity. It doesn't prevent them from being completely evil, but lackeys and stooges are also not the people who can create a popular, stable system. I dread what happens if Musk succeeds in breaking Social Security-- but it won't be pretty for the Republicans.

My thoughts exactly. Trump is as bad or even worse than anyone expected but here's something encouraging though in seeing him or his cronies fail miserably in most everything they try; as in, for instance, naming the wrong FBI director.

They may want to set up a police state, but they sure are going to struggle with it.

One thing that is encouraging is that "town halls" involving Republicans are showing significant anger about and opposition to what is Trump is doing even in deep red states...

Zompist wrote:This is Fascism 2.0, streamlined for an era where no one feels like marching in the streets.

If only there was some kind of organization that could unify ordinary working-class people, teach them why this is bad, and activate them to protest this...

Trump purges anti-Trump generals from the military. The marines now have a policy of throwing out black people: https://youtu.be/V1TLvuoorFE And a lot of soldiers are quitting.

The US is a dangerous place to enter right now. I'm serious: https://youtu.be/zO3oCpOAMW8 I hear lots of people trying to enter from Germany are being sent back after being detained.

Leeja Miller is covering these policies from a legal standpoint: https://youtu.be/mlrqAOqI3Y4

Also, a lot of people approve of Trump's policies: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump- ... w-new-poll

Like I said, being Hitler is the new normal. Our villains are worse than Hitler, people like Bukele. The people who think the Nazis should have been nuked in WWII should support nuking El Salvador, possibly the most evil country to exist so far. That's including Iran.

Even though most people sympathize with the broader leftist message, there's only so much pushback you can generate with the amount of support today's leftists have. I get it too. The contemporary left is horribly unattractive. I don't like their regressive, naturalist, religionist message, which is pushed even by today's "Marxists". A lot of these "justice" activists don't even identify as "leftist" anymore. I'm thinking of Hospicing Modernity by Vanessa Machado de Oliveira.

It's not particularly surprising that fascists have more popular support than these "leftists" the CIA funded to oppose the Communists. I like the original Communists better, although I don't agree with their authoritarianism. E.g.: https://youtu.be/6r_dawrOJ2o

Intellectuals, including me, find the Communist message kind of dull. That's apparently part of its appeal. Even among Marxists, I personally prefer Walter Benjamin, his Parisian arcades and his interpretation of Proust over socialist realism as far as aesthetics is concerned.

Sounds like people here are finally getting it, after weeks of denouncing me as an overly pessimistic doomer. Some sheepish apologies are in order.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:32 pm Sounds like people here are finally getting it, after weeks of denouncing me as an overly pessimistic doomer. Some sheepish apologies are in order.

I'd be surprised if it lasts 30 years.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 8:19 pmAt the root of it, I think that unless you have law enforcement on your side (as happened in South Korea), it’s very difficult to force lawbreakers to stop. Hence people hoping for the court rulings.

Which Trump is now openly defying. Apparently Federal courts can deputise state law enforcement agencies to enforce their decisions in cases where Federal agencies refuse, but (1) they're also very MAGA and (2) this takes us from a constitutional crisis to the brink of actual civil war.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 11:55 am Even though most people sympathize with the broader leftist message, there's only so much pushback you can generate with the amount of support today's leftists have. I get it too. The contemporary left is horribly unattractive. I don't like their regressive, naturalist, religionist message, which is pushed even by today's "Marxists". A lot of these "justice" activists don't even identify as "leftist" anymore. I'm thinking of Hospicing Modernity by Vanessa Machado de Oliveira.

It's not particularly surprising that fascists have more popular support than these "leftists" the CIA funded to oppose the Communists. I like the original Communists better, although I don't agree with their authoritarianism. E.g.: https://youtu.be/6r_dawrOJ2o

Intellectuals, including me, find the Communist message kind of dull. That's apparently part of its appeal. Even among Marxists, I personally prefer Walter Benjamin, his Parisian arcades and his interpretation of Proust over socialist realism as far as aesthetics is concerned.

Much of the contemporary "left" can go to hell IMO. The people against modernity and who blindly favor so-called "natural" things are people I see as enemies, not friends. The people who supposedly seek "justice" when said "justice" is merely inverting the preexisting hierarchies rather than seeking freedom and equality for all do not seek real justice. The people who believe in new-age "spirituality" are no improvement upon the established religions of old, and are probably worse since they dispense with rationality altogether.

At the same time, though, the people who seek to rewarm Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao (and don't get me on the topic of tankies) are of no use themselves. Classic Communist ideology was and is thoroughly illiberal, and when actually implemented showed itself to be a series of oppressive failures on a grand scale. Where Communism managed to survive to the present day it usually turned into plain old authoritarianism shorn of all its supposed workerist pretenses. And there is no place in Communism for anyone other than the Party members and the Communist stereotypes of what the Proletariat (or in the case of Maoism, the Peasantry) is supposed to be. If you are LGBT, for instance, there is no place in Communism for you.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:49 pm At the same time, though, the people who seek to rewarm Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao (and don't get me on the topic of tankies) are of no use themselves. Classic Communist ideology was and is thoroughly illiberal, and when actually implemented showed itself to be a series of oppressive failures on a grand scale. Where Communism managed to survive to the present day it usually turned into plain old authoritarianism shorn of all its supposed workerist pretenses. And there is no place in Communism for anyone other than the Party members and the Communist stereotypes of what the Proletariat (or in the case of Maoism, the Peasantry) is supposed to be. If you are LGBT, for instance, there is no place in Communism for you.

It was Stalin who promoted anti-LGBT and nationalism IIRC. This stuff doesn't really have a Marxist justification. E.g. See what Marx and Engels said about the family.

In that post, I was mainly referring to the aesthetics of the broader message: We will help feed and clothe each other so we can all be dilettantes. Then we can go to space together.

Other than the space part, that's pretty much what Marx said about Communism. He explicitly said productive capacities should be so high that anyone can do any work they feel like at the moment.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:49 pm Trotsky

Trotsky didn't support human rights. At the same time, he did promote a lot of the democratic opposition to tyranny that's a part of contemporary leftist discourse. He framed it as an opposition to government bureaucracy, which is probably ancestral to the contemporary opposition to "technocracy". Personally, I don't think this framing doesn't does the job either.

As for Maoists, they tried to import traditional Chinese metaphysics into Marxist dialectics, making it crazier than it already was. I have previously discussed the differences between the authoritarian iron production approach and my direct democratic approach in more detail.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:32 pm Sounds like people here are finally getting it, after weeks of denouncing me as an overly pessimistic doomer. Some sheepish apologies are in order.

I think so too. When can we expect your apology for spreading despair and nonresistance against fascism?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 1:09 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:49 pm Trotsky

Trotsky didn't support human rights. At the same time, he did promote a lot of the democratic opposition to tyranny that's a part of contemporary leftist discourse. He framed it as an opposition to government bureaucracy, which is probably ancestral to the contemporary opposition to "technocracy". Personally, I don't think this framing doesn't does the job either.

Anarchists still have not forgiven Trotsky for his role in helping turn the Russian Revolution into an oppressive clusterfuck, well before Stalin concentrated power in his own hands. Remember, Trotsky et al, not Stalin, can be blamed for the Cheka and its ilk. And anarchists remember that its victims included not just Whites and reactionaries but plenty of leftists too. (That said, anarchists are plenty willing to strategically ally with Trotskyists when it suits their purposes, as could be seen during the Spanish Civil War.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:49 pm Much of the contemporary "left" can go to hell IMO. The people against modernity and who blindly favor so-called "natural" things are people I see as enemies, not friends. The people who supposedly seek "justice" when said "justice" is merely inverting the preexisting hierarchies rather than seeking freedom and equality for all do not seek real justice. The people who believe in new-age "spirituality" are no improvement upon the established religions of old, and are probably worse since they dispense with rationality altogether.

At the same time, though, the people who seek to rewarm Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao (and don't get me on the topic of tankies) are of no use themselves. Classic Communist ideology was and is thoroughly illiberal, and when actually implemented showed itself to be a series of oppressive failures on a grand scale.

I share your opinion of authoritarian communism, but you also have to be aware that a lot of left-wingers do good work despite their ideologies or end goals. A friend of ours is a Maoist— if you talk theory with her you'd roll your eyes to a medically dangerous degree. But her group regularly cooperates with other left organizations, and even the Democratic Party. The communists and anarchists, to put it bluntly, are people who will come to meetings, help with demonstrations, work together on issues they agree with. They are not people you would want to give power to, but being too high-minded to accept help isn't a great idea either.

This has been true for a long time in the US; I dunno, it may be quite the reverse in Europe. (Though honestly any socialist or social democratic leader in Europe who doesn't have the communists on speed dial is going to have problems when the fascists threaten to win elections.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 2:54 pm Anarchists still have not forgiven Trotsky for his role in helping turn the Russian Revolution into an oppressive clusterfuck, well before Stalin concentrated power in his own hands. Remember, Trotsky et al, not Stalin, can be blamed for the Cheka and its ilk. And anarchists remember that its victims included not just Whites and reactionaries but plenty of leftists too. (That said, anarchists are plenty willing to strategically ally with Trotskyists when it suits their purposes, as could be seen during the Spanish Civil War.)

Definitely. Trotsky is personally responsible for the Red Terror. Not only that, his plan was to carry on the Red Terror to the ends of the earth. Stalin's nationalism included confining it to one country. That's one of the main reasons Trotskyists hate Stalinists. They hate Stalin because the Stalinists demanded that they stop trying to kill literally everyone.

At the same time, Trotsky promoted an ideology of democratic opposition to tyranny. When Trotsky carried out the Red Terror, the USSR wasn't a stable country. He didn't think of himself as a government agent; more like an instrument of the people's anger against their oppressors.

That is to say, he didn't support human rights, so I don't support his cause.

I'm not really into the Communist movement as it exists. I just think they have better messaging in some ways.

I'm not too familiar with what the Communists are doing these days. My understanding is that the non-tankie line goes something like: All power to the Soviets. Not parties.

This line is very different from my proposal, but it's actually pretty close to yours. A Soviet is just a worker's council. We are both against the authoritarianism of the vanguard parties, but your proposal is to replace the government with a system of worker's councils.

From what I understand, the main difference between your position and non-tankie Communism are: you support human rights whereas Communists traditionally don't (going back all the way to Marx), you support markets and worker co-ops whereas Communists traditionally support a war economy until productivity is high enough that everyone can afford to be a dilettante.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 3:22 pm I'm not really into the Communist movement as it exists. I just think they have better messaging in some ways.

I'm not too familiar with what the Communists are doing these days. My understanding is that the non-tankie line goes something like: All power to the Soviets. Not parties.

This line is very different from my proposal, but it's actually pretty close to yours. A Soviet is just a worker's council. We are both against the authoritarianism of the vanguard parties, but your proposal is to replace the government with a system of worker's councils.

From what I understand, the main difference between your position and non-tankie Communism are: you support human rights whereas Communists traditionally don't (going back all the way to Marx), you support markets and worker co-ops whereas Communists traditionally support a war economy until productivity is high enough that everyone can afford to be a dilettante.

You have pretty much got what I am for on the money -- I believe in human rights (this is an area where I differ from anarchists, as anarchists believe that rights only exist to protect one from the government, and as the government should be done away with altogether people don't need rights; I on the other hand am not quite so apt to believe that people will necessarily be so benevolent overall, as after all governments are formed of people, that people don't need rights), I am for an economy where production of goods with non-negligible marginal cost is based on markets (but I believe in much more interventionism in the production of things with little to no marginal cost such as software and with respect to essential services everyone needs such as healthcare and education), I am for worker cooperatives (and hybrid worker-consumer cooperatives) as opposed to both private and state ownership and management of production, and I am for government based on a system of workers' councils.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 3:05 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:49 pm Much of the contemporary "left" can go to hell IMO. The people against modernity and who blindly favor so-called "natural" things are people I see as enemies, not friends. The people who supposedly seek "justice" when said "justice" is merely inverting the preexisting hierarchies rather than seeking freedom and equality for all do not seek real justice. The people who believe in new-age "spirituality" are no improvement upon the established religions of old, and are probably worse since they dispense with rationality altogether.

At the same time, though, the people who seek to rewarm Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao (and don't get me on the topic of tankies) are of no use themselves. Classic Communist ideology was and is thoroughly illiberal, and when actually implemented showed itself to be a series of oppressive failures on a grand scale.

I share your opinion of authoritarian communism, but you also have to be aware that a lot of left-wingers do good work despite their ideologies or end goals. A friend of ours is a Maoist— if you talk theory with her you'd roll your eyes to a medically dangerous degree. But her group regularly cooperates with other left organizations, and even the Democratic Party. The communists and anarchists, to put it bluntly, are people who will come to meetings, help with demonstrations, work together on issues they agree with. They are not people you would want to give power to, but being too high-minded to accept help isn't a great idea either.

This has been true for a long time in the US; I dunno, it may be quite the reverse in Europe. (Though honestly any socialist or social democratic leader in Europe who doesn't have the communists on speed dial is going to have problems when the fascists threaten to win elections.)

Back in my days where I could legitimately call myself an "activist", I quickly learned that you had to work with people even if you deeply disagreed with their actual ideologies and like. I remember regularly coming to Peace Action meetings and dealing with a wide variety of people at the time. However, I eventually stormed out of a Peace Action meeting one day in protest and didn't come back when one of the major Milwaukee Green types tried to turn the Milwaukee branch into an organ of the local Green Party. (In retrospect it would probably have been more useful if I stayed and acted to help resist the attempted takeover of Peace Action Milwaukee.)

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 2:48 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:32 pm Sounds like people here are finally getting it, after weeks of denouncing me as an overly pessimistic doomer. Some sheepish apologies are in order.

I think so too. When can we expect your apology for spreading despair and nonresistance against fascism?

You might as well blame Cassandra for the fall of Troy.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 5:16 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 2:48 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:32 pm Sounds like people here are finally getting it, after weeks of denouncing me as an overly pessimistic doomer. Some sheepish apologies are in order.

I think so too. When can we expect your apology for spreading despair and nonresistance against fascism?

You might as well blame Cassandra for the fall of Troy.

More like blaming Russian disinformation agents for spreading defeatism.

If you're looking for praise or payment, please see your Russian handler. And could you ask them to send a better class of provocateur? It's right embarrassing that we don't deserve better.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 4:06 pm Back in my days where I could legitimately call myself an "activist", I quickly learned that you had to work with people even if you deeply disagreed with their actual ideologies and like. I remember regularly coming to Peace Action meetings and dealing with a wide variety of people at the time. However, I eventually stormed out of a Peace Action meeting one day in protest and didn't come back when one of the major Milwaukee Green types tried to turn the Milwaukee branch into an organ of the local Green Party. (In retrospect it would probably have been more useful if I stayed and acted to help resist the attempted takeover of Peace Action Milwaukee.)

Maybe, or maybe you'd just have been frustrated for longer. Although there are effective organizations, it seems like activist groups are prone, over time, to get dominated by the argument-prone, who drive everyone else away.

BTW, Trump administration removes ban on 'segregated facilities' in federal contracts:
https://ground.news/article/segregated- ... room-share

Where are segregated facilities likely to crop up?