because the majority of Americans are not reactionaries
lol
Yes that is a debatable point. It brings up once again the old concept of labor aristocracy and we have to ask ourselves to what extent do the material interests that have been formed in the imperial core even allow for the development of true revolutionary potential…
I myself find that i alternate between doomerism and revolutionary optimism on this topic. On the one hand i am perpetually disappointed seeing how bribed and/or complicit the population of the imperial core is, their lack of class consciousness and solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the global south… but on the other hand it feels wrong and elitist to simply discard the majority of the western masses as inherently reactionary.
Because how can one call onesself a communist if one does not trust in the masses? As a communist i am part of the masses, i am not above them, i am not better than them, i am not smarter than them, i just happen to have had my eyes opened a little earlier than the rest, and if i could come to the correct conclusions and learn to reject liberalism, idealism and reactionary prejudices then so can they.
It would be easy to give in to the temptation to simply discard the majority of Americans as reactionary so that i could feel superior, especially as i am not American so i could pretend like my own country is somehow better, but frankly from what i’ve seen and experienced so far it’s really not.
Sure, maybe their material circumstances will have to change first in some way before that kind of change can take place on a scale large enough to begin to make real difference, but it can and it will happen eventually.
But how can one call onesself a communist if one does not trust in the masses?
When one trusts in the global masses, but withholds that trust from those they know would sooner fuck up than properly allocate. i.e., Amerikans. Afaic, that’s just opsec. See, I am landlocked in Amerika. I’ve seen and lived this place’s callousness first-hand, gauged the atomization, broke bread and wallets for bail funds and commissary when no one else would. From that experience? I say ‘show and prove’. Words are air when settlers speak them.
I think that’s a fair point and a totally understandable position.
I’m not bothering reading this trash anymore. Frankly, I threw it the fuck out the minute I realized for the third or fourth article in a row now, he just cannot keep BAR out his goddamn mouth. I don’t care. Whatever he has to say, I do not care; it’s just more settler wind that I have to suffer through in a given week 'til it’s vented. You wanna lay with dogs, don’t be fucking surprised when you wake up with fleas. I’m not gonna sit here and type out effectively the same counterpoints to already-stale defenses for his carrying water for fucking fascists.
I’m personally a fan of Black Agenda Report, i think they do a lot of good work, i always enjoyed reading them and listening to their programs and i find it quite sad to see this conflict that has developed between them and certain parts of the communist movement in the US. But i was also quite shocked at how many NATO talking points about the Ukraine conflict that they have repeated. I don’t believe that they do this for any malicious reason but simply because the imperialist propaganda is so overwhelming and omnipresent, and the pressure to accept at least part of it in order to not be completely ostracized and demonized in progressive and other liberal adjacent circles is so high.
It’s of course your prerogative to disagree with Rainer, there are valid critiques to be made of the strategy that he endorses, but i do think it is about as unfair and disingenuous to accuse him of “carrying water for fascists” as it would be for the other side of this debate to accuse you of guilt by association with imperialists because you support BAR who have connections with so-called progressive and pro-Democrat organizations.
Ultimately coalition building is always going to be messy. Someone is always going to be disappointed and some of the temporary alliances of convenience that one enters into are going to make some people feel “impure”, as if merely by associating with certain people with whom one has ideological disagreements one’s soul becomes “tainted” or “dirty”. This is understandable as we all have certain ideological positions that we are very heavily emotionally invested in, and when we encounter people who take the opposite position our negative emotional reaction is very strong, particularly when the issue in question is one that affects us personally.
For instance if your number one enemy are internal reactionaries and the threat they pose to you and your community then it makes sense for your own self-interest to compromise on imperialism and ally with liberal adjacent forces. I can’t blame anyone for making such a choice for the sake of their own safety and survival, even if i do fear it may be short sighted. It takes a certain amount of privilege to be able to assign a lower priority to the threats that reactionaries pose to marginalized communities. But by the same token don’t be surprised when people for whom the primary threat are not domestic US reactionaries but the actions of the US empire abroad (which is the case for most of the global south) choose the compromise that they feel keeps them safer.
On the whole i will say though that i think both sides of this particular debate make some valid arguments but i also see problematic aspects in each camp. I am hopeful that this can be resolved because i think there are more commonalities than differences, and in my opinion the disagreements are kind of being exaggerated…it’s not so much that there is a major qualitative ideological difference but merely a difference of where the focus lies, what each side sees as their number one strategic priority.
I do wish you would continue to read what Rainer has to say and continue to seriously critique it, i think that these discussions are valuable, they are the kind ideological struggle that needs to be carried out internally among the left until we arrive at a synthesis to resolve this contradiction we are seeing.
But i was also quite shocked at how many NATO talking points about the Ukraine conflict that they have repeated. I don’t believe that they do this for any malicious reason but simply because the imperialist propaganda is so overwhelming and omnipresent, and the pressure to accept at least part of it in order to not be completely ostracized and demonized in progressive and other liberal adjacent circles is so high.
If you’ve seen their coverage of the Uhuru House raids, then you already know why their speech has been chilled since. New Afrikans are held to a different set of rules than settlers where journalism is concerned. Rainer can type whatever the blue fuck he wants on that substack of his, he’ll likely never know federal harassment over it. Meanwhile, the Uhuru movement questions the narrative, their shit gets raided, their hard drives stole, and a bunch of its people thrown in the pen(and I hope, since you read BAR, you at least broke a lil change for the bail fund. Them, or the Cop City lockups, rly). Hell, I’ve been harassed by both uniformed pigs and plain-clothes FBI before just for being close to people who challenge the narrative. So when I see the likes of BAR having to code-switch, I understand that this is necessity for survival, because there’s no instance of code-switching that isn’t.
Ultimately coalition building is always going to be messy. Someone is always going to be disappointed and some of the temporary alliances of convenience that one enters into are going to make some people feel “impure”,
This is not a purity thing. This is a “you’ve got me fucked upside-down and sideways if you think I’m going to sit there and regard someone who coalition-builds with phobics and not come to see them as just another opp” thing. The Mises Caucus is literally running out oldhead libertarians with their manifold hatreds. I see a Kristallnacht II happening in the next ten years, and mark my words, it’ll be Rainer’s new buddies holding the knives at the end of the day. If it was like-- those oldhead, Ron Paul libertarians circa 2007, I’d have less dragging to do about the matter, but these new libertarians are literally the type that want to exterminate LGBT folk and their ‘ideology’. These are literally hard-right MAGAts that Rainer thinks he can somehow civilize; and… No.
I’m not doing that. No one I know is doing that-- and I genuinely feel like my intelligence is being insulted when people try to tell me that what I’m seeing isn’t real, or isn’t an issue at this point. These are literal brownshirts; and those who play with them will pay for it.
So when I see the likes of BAR having to code-switch, I understand that this is necessity for survival, because there’s no instance of code-switching that isn’t.
cfgaussian was saying that BAR repeats a lot of NATO talking points about Ukraine and you’re saying that repeating NATO talking points is actually “code-switching” for survival. Ok, then what’s the point? What’s the point of having a leftist org that repeats imperialist talking points?
What part of “they essentially have to to keep a platform and keep from getting funneled into carceral slavery, considering the settler-left will conveniently overlook as much of our shit as they feel they can get away with” did you not read out of that? What would you have? That the colonized subjects of empire just submit themselves to the death squads doing shit to appease your desire for internal purity-of-thought? I already know to disregard their geopolitical takes regarding NATO in favor of their coverage of movements in the New Afrikan community, and that of the global south, so… What is your point here? This isn’t something that can be warrant canary’d, you actually have to read between the lines here. Shocking, I know.
You make a very good point that BAR should not be discarded just because they have some bad takes on the Ukraine conflict. We need them for all the good work that they do in so many other respects, we simply support the good positions that they take and reject the bad ones. But by the same logic however, could you not simply disregard the reactionary positions of those involved in the RAWM protests and just focus on supporting their anti-NATO and anti-war activism? Is that not something that is inherently valuable for the communist movement regardless which ideological direction that it comes from? As communists we should have enough confidence in our own convictions that we don’t need fear being subsumed and losing our identity just because we work together on occasion with people and groups from different ideological camps. After all, we also have no problem working with anarchists and even socdems when it comes to things like labor organizing, tenant unions, prisoner advocacy, etc. So long as the practical results are positive isn’t that what really matters?
After all, we also have no problem working with anarchists and even socdems when it comes to things like labor organizing, tenant unions, prisoner advocacy, etc. So long as the practical results are positive isn’t that what really matters?
The average anarchist doesn’t tend to have a track record of genocidal language against the already trod-upon. That’s exactly where my issue is-- I’ve already seen the receipts regarding “the extermination of ‘transgenderism’”, I’ve already seen their racially-anxious whelping, I’ve already seen how their sausage is made-- and that’s why I can’t trust a coalition movement that has their involvement to be anything other than a Trojan Horse to their own ends. They can say whatever they’d like to try and backpeddle; their water-bearers can bear those buckets all day; it’s not gonna change the fact that the record is there.
Like I said a few days ago-- these Mises Caucus mfs are going to use this event to catapult into electoral politics through their own base; and our people will have helped them do it. I see this as nothing more than ‘choosing the form of the Destroyer’ ala Ghostbusters. I wish I had your optimism in the settler-imperial left; because based on what I’ve seen thus far? I expect them to fold at the slightest bit of pressure. There is not a track record for solidarity here.
Leftist infighting is just Rhainer Shea posting now, isn’t it?
At least it’s not anarchoposting lol.
On one hand i have some critiques of his articles, mostly because he seems to swing from the depressed doomerism to maniacal optimism which do seems to colour his analysis too much, but on the other after filtering this he sounds mostly correct.
Problem is, from what i can say the US leftist politics is completely fucked up with everyone accusing everyone else of being feds all the time.
So i would generally refrain.
I mean… His articles often seem to generate quite a bit of controversy here, so…if the shoe fits? He has lately been writing a lot about an as yet unresolved debate that is happening among the (mainly US) left and from what i can see this ideological struggle will likely go on for a long time without a resolution. But the discussions that this generates are very interesting and i find i learn a lot from the informed critiques that get written in response to his articles. For me as someone not directly involved in what is happening in the US it has been very interesting to follow. A few of the responses sometimes fall flat but that’s ok too, this is the leftist infighting community after all, what better place than here is there to express one’s disagreements and frustrations with other leftists?
