- 0 Posts
- 16 Comments
Where I am from there are like 8 different leftists parties laying claim to the same chunk of people. There will be one big and relevant party in the end, but getting there has the danger of a bajillion parties competing and creating noise rather than directed struggle. XKCD standards meme
I would tend to agree on the class party aspect, but as with anything there is an outward motion. The most effective struggle doesn’t start at the higher levels of abstraction. Egoism comes first, not in the Stirnerian sense, where people make sure they are not deported by ice, where military service is eschewed, where when arrested the fifth amendment is kept in mind. The next stage would be tenant unions, trade unions, more organised forms of struggle. Then education, reading circles, discussions, talks and so on. I see the party as the capstone of all of these working class interests. Ultimately it becomes the expression of our species’ interest towards the end of class struggle.
It’s not about the wealthiest 0.5%, the oligarchs as you’d call them. All of this revolves around the struggle against capitalism. Workers (about 60 to 70% of society depending on the definition and employment rates) against the bourgeoisie (~15% including petit bourgeoisie).
Joining a union or creating one is one of the most subversive things one can do in this day and age. Propaganda for unions is very effective at leveraging the class schism in favour of workers/socialism.
Just don’t a union that advocates creating large weaponry or represents law enforcement/servants of the state.
Proper unionising makes capitalists piss their pants. I have read a ton about politics and it seems to really give you the most bang for your buck.
Okay, abolish capitalism. There is no way of satisfying your needs, which includes surviving climate change, without changing the fundamental structure of society.
Literally the whole “just get rid of billionaires” crowd when someone says that no one needs more than a million. Everyone thinks they will become a wholesome decamillionaire
How on earth do you equate curbing wasteful production with halving living standards and what makes you believe that having a lower living standard gives rise to violence? The per year-per person CO2 emissions of Swedes hover at a relatively cool 3.5 tons, while US Americans are emitting 13 tons (2023 statistics). Sweden has half the population density of the United States and is a relatively large country in terms of area. Swedes enjoy higher living standards than US Americans, are therefore more comfortable and they significantly are less violent with gang crime taken into account - which is, just so you know, pure racist fearmongering that plays into US-Israeli imperialist interest.
Let’s look at Argentina, because here the standard of living is actually lower than in the States. Argentina’s homicide rate is below that of the US’s. And I’m not even one to glaze South America, especially not Argentina. Take Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia, countries that are relatively crowded compared to Argentina and have even less, they have analogous relationships, that is, there is no clear relationship between violence living standards. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)
But do you see a pattern in your assumptions?
Not me saying that going vegan, changing energy and giving up luxuries no one needs like travelling to Fiji every few years would prevent this even with eight billion people.
I get what you are saying, the Russian revolution was a success despite sharing a feature that was a great hindrance. I think though that saying “X has always been like this” has a somewhat ahistorical quality to it. There is simply no good knowledge of the future.