Mass Deportations Or: Let's Get This Party Started

[Politruk]

There really is no way in which America will be better off without these immigrants. What is the point of even spending the money?

 

[Holy_Seduction]

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:a5bjg4dy5yvzqi5i3jkdxdoa/bafkreidyid47b3pmjoulk4hp7lvf4ralafd5v55hy6rryvr24qzowf7ray@jpeg

Methinks a little too incisive to be allowed …

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘…like many other countries…’

Then there is the global proletariat. And what is it? It is a great world power.

But this is not acknowledged. Why is that?

While relations of social production exist in every nation, productive relations are not permitted to define a nation anywhere.

In translation, the ‘economic equilibrium’ line means, the petit bourgeoisie, the Next 9% [Democratic Party] after the bourgeoisie, the top 1% [GOP], wants a heavier slice of the economic pie produced by the global proletarian class, the 90%.

Proletarians see that the 1% [owners] and Next 9% [investors] have their own program, they surely have the right to their own party with working class policies and program.

And without that platform, elections are reduced to a contest in which two bourgeois parties compete to see who gets the lion’s share of the proletarian-produced spoils.

Under those terms, you could host a National Election every day of the year; proletarians would be no further ahead. As you say ..,

‘It’s all a matter of degree regarding how much ANY American administration will attend to the needs of the middle and lower class…’

And there you have it! Since what has been is the ‘best’ that any worker can expect under ANY [emphasis yours] US regime, the working class can advance solely as it turns to its own party platform and program.

As the old saw goes, if you want something done right, do it yourself. What could be more quintessentially ‘American?’

 

[Politruk]

Then there is the global proletariat. And what is it? It is a great world power.

But this is not acknowledged. Why is that?

Because it does not exist. There is a global bourgeoisie, but proletariats are national -- or subnational: in the U.S., the white proletariat and the black proletariat are separate and distinct classes.

 

[UltraChad]

That's what the ACLU lawyers are for. Duh.

Aaaaand meanwhile the jumbo jets, cargo jets and buss's are deporting galore.

Give the ACLU and any open borders (D)ipshit judges of theirs the finger.

 

[UltraChad]

The Democrats are out of power:

… so systematic attacks on children can’t be thwarted even while they hold power.

But having power, democrats can extend wars and regime change operations.

This is what the immigrant community voted for…

A failed reactionary campaign needs an explanation. What better than an explanation that scapegoats others our failed campaign, absolves ourselves of obligation to intervene, and turns them over to the punishments of a convinced fascist. So we read …

‘Welcome to the new America.’

You make the case not for reversing an errant decision; you make the case for the permanent rejection and ultimate disbanding of the Democratic Party as a pseudo-left tendency that is explicitly tied to the GOP and its Master of Malfeasance.

Your very reply contains the reason for which democrats can be trusted with the future no more than their GIP coconspirators.

I love how EVIL and DEMONIC you make the GOP sound because they want borders.

LMFAO....you people are fucking insane.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘Because it does not exist…’

Well that is rather what I said, is it not?

‘While relations of social production exist in every nation, productive relations are not permitted to define a nation anywhere.’

Except that it does exist by virtue of the very transnational nature of the productive system itself. Toilers are joined by their common experiences, frequently enduring the same tactics inflicted by the same corporations.

Then you give us …

‘…the white proletariat … the black proletariat are separate and distinct classes.’

Yet …

‘By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.’
[Engels, 1888 English edition].

Who would have thought that our beloved forum was visited by a better teacher of socialism than Marx’ own closest friend, comrade, and co-author of the Manifesto.

A white proletariat … a black proletariat … anything BUT laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their own labor power in order to live.

In other words, anything but Marxism. In other words, anything but socialism. In other words, any deviation from class struggle, any focus on cultural dimensions than on direct revolutionary action is preferable to direct revolutionary action. In other words — and above all else — no ceding ANYthing to the global community that is reduced to selling its own labor power in order to live, as they have no means of production of their own.

But the ruling class has an international structure, you say? So let the proletariat be and do the same in order to achieve its own material ends! Except that then, there would be no need of the petit bourgeois faction to sell out the international proletarian community to their respective global owner overlords.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘…they want borders.’

I don’t recall mentioning the “B” word.

So far as slanderous insults to the GOP go, methinks the worst I said is that these two, bourgeois parties have a record of dealings with each other.

That relations are currently strained doesn’t change that; it rather shows that systemic erosion of the US system is at a point where the institutions and processes of state are no longer capable of hiding that disintegration from the eyes of the world. Do you really think that a US rampage would be seen by the world as anything else?

 

[schism666]

 

[Politruk]

Well that is rather what I said, is it not?

‘While relations of social production exist in every nation, productive relations are not permitted to define a nation anywhere.’

Except that it does exist by virtue of the very transnational nature of the productive system itself. Toilers are joined by their common experiences, frequently enduring the same tactics inflicted by the same corporations.

Then you give us …

‘…the white proletariat … the black proletariat are separate and distinct classes.’

Yet …

‘By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.’
[Engels, 1888 English edition].

Who would have thought that our beloved forum was visited by a better teacher of socialism than Marx’ own closest friend, comrade, and co-author of the Manifesto.

A white proletariat … a black proletariat … anything BUT laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their own labor power in order to live.

In other words, anything but Marxism. In other words, anything but socialism. In other words, any deviation from class struggle, any focus on cultural dimensions than on direct revolutionary action is preferable to direct revolutionary action. In other words — and above all else — no ceding ANYthing to the global community that is reduced to selling its own labor power in order to live, as they have no means of production of their own.

But the ruling class has an international structure, you say? So let the proletariat be and do the same in order to achieve its own material ends! Except that then, there would be no need of the petit bourgeois faction to sell out the international proletarian community to their respective global owner overlords.

A strictly Marxist analysis of class oversimplifies the picture. A social class cannot be defined strictly by its economic function because a social class is a social entity, within which people freely socialize and freely marry. Working-class white Americans and working-class blacks live in different neighborhoods, go to different churches, drink in different bars, and rarely marry across the racial divide. They live in different worlds and they have different worldviews. And an even broader gulf divides both groups from foreign workers. The socialist movement will never get anywhere by assuming an international class consciousness that cannot exist.

 

[Rotadom]

And you defended them

Absolutely not. You're insane.

 

[ll74]

View attachment 2450891

The microchip complex geared up for Biden's investment as well.

Which jobs are more important to our future?

 

[Holy_Seduction]

A strictly Marxist analysis of class oversimplifies the picture. A social class cannot be defined strictly by its economic function because a social class is a social entity, within which people freely socialize and freely marry. Working-class white Americans and working-class blacks live in different neighborhoods, go to different churches, drink in different bars, and rarely marry across the racial divide. They live in different worlds and they have different worldviews. And an even broader gulf divides both groups from foreign workers. The socialist movement will never get anywhere by assuming an international class consciousness that cannot exist.

You put individual social practices in place of material economic function and mode of production under Capitalism as the basis of class relations. This serves and protects the ruling class by diverting attention from the basis of their privilege.

That the capitalist system inherently creates class divisions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat — divisions that transcend social and cultural differences — this is avoided studiously. There can be no class struggle while the economic driver of historical change is reduced to social and cultural differences.

Internationalism is equally essential. If the economic laws Marx defined, identification of three social classes under the Capitalist system that is the basis of Marxist analysis, the Marxist theory of value, the extraction of surplus value, the tendency of profit to decline in proportion to Capital’s development, etc. are objectively valid, then they must be universally applicable.

For those two reasons alone, you cannot be a socialist, and therefore not a Marxist. You cannot and won’t support social revolution. But there is more.

Social consciousness is shaped by material conditions, and differ as individual experiences may, the overarching economic conditions create a common class interest, and that is the basis of solidarity. Socialist task is the struggle to overcome every obstacle to revolutionary socialist solidarity.

Every genuinely revolutionary movement actively works to build class consciousness among all workers, regardless of race or nationality. Failure to do so results in the fragmentation of the working class, the strengthening of bourgeois interests, and ultimately the rise of fascistic figures as those arising around the globe at this time.

Be clear on that point. Trotsky explicitly stated that fascism is the punishment of the working [proletarian] class for its failure to develop a robust, socialist party supported by the working class. To the extent that it has actively suppressed socialist solidarity, the Democratic Party is equally complicit in the emerging totalitarian tendency in the US.

You have used the ‘reformist’ line with me in the past. Reformist and identity politics prioritize social divisions over class unity. Such approaches dilute revolutionary potential by focusing the working class on anything other than the material economic function and mode of production under Capitalism as the basis of class relations.

 

[Politruk]

For those two reasons alone, you cannot be a socialist, and therefore not a Marxist.

The socialist movement existed before Marx joined it, and would have been better off without the pseudoscientific intellectual substructure Marx gave it. Socialism needs to move past Marxism once and for all.

 

[Politruk]

View attachment 2450891

You post that as if you are gloating over it where any decent person would be horrified. The very existence of a private prison industry is horrible.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

A strictly Marxist analysis of class oversimplifies the picture. A social class cannot be defined strictly by its economic function because a social class is a social entity, within which people freely socialize and freely marry. Working-class white Americans and working-class blacks live in different neighborhoods, go to different churches, drink in different bars, and rarely marry across the racial divide. They live in different worlds and they have different worldviews. And an even broader gulf divides both groups from foreign workers. The socialist movement will never get anywhere by assuming an international class consciousness that cannot exist.

To repeat myself, the capitalist system inherently divides society into classes based on their relation to the means of production. This economic foundation is crucial for grasping class struggle and achieving revolutionary potential.

That individuals have varied experiences based on race or locality does not negate the existence of a common class interest among all workers who are exploited under the Capitalist system of production.

A key difference between all reactionary, reformist tendencies and revolutionary socialism in the best of Marxist tradition is that in the later, we are absolutely certain that the working class has the competence to lead a revolutionary movement.

Detractors are convinced otherwise, and tend to see the working class as human chattel to be driven back and forth in campaign after campaign as directed by union bosses and attending democrats.

 

[Politruk]

That individuals have varied experiences based on race or locality does not negate the existence of a common class interest among all workers who are exploited under the Capitalist system of production.

But it does negate the possibility of a common class consciousness. International proletarian solidarity has never existed. Least of all among Communists, who always act like nationalists when they come to power.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘The socialist movement…’

The socialist movement … would have been better off without … Marx gave it. Socialism needs to move past Marxism once and for all.

Of course you think that. What choice does a petit bourgeois opportunist have?

Marx's analysis gave us history as the history of class struggle, and the proletariat as the revolutionary class capable of overthrowing capitalism through organized class struggle to achieve socialism.

Without Marx' essential contributions, socialism would be a vague notion of social justice or welfare reform. It would have no clear revolutionary strategy or grasp of the capitalist system.

Marx systematized socialism. He coherently analyzed capitalism's inner workings and contradictions. He distinguished reformist and revolutionary socialism, advocating for the latter as the only viable path to genuine social emancipation.

His work helped to intellectual ground socialist movements by articulating a clear vision of the society that could emerge from the struggles of the working class.

The absence of Marx's analysis would lead to a fragmented and ineffective socialist movement, inevitably ruined by reformist ideas that seek to ameliorate and thereby rescue capitalism rather than abolish it.

The petit bourgeois party democrats job is more difficult because Marx went beyond earlier constructions like Fourier and Owen’s utopian socialism, anarchism, etc. Marx’ rejection of idealistic visions and reformist solutions with no rigorous analysis of capitalism is why we’re conversing now.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘Least of all among Communists…’

Well of course.

“Socialism [misnamed] in one country” was the campaign through which Stalin betrayed the Revolution.

Is that why you give us the ‘national proletariat’ line? Do you align with the Stalinist tendency, Politruk?

 

[Politruk]

Well of course.

“Socialism [misnamed] in one country” was the campaign through which Stalin betrayed the Revolution.

Is that why you give us the ‘national proletariat’ line? Do you align with the Stalinist tendency, Politruk?

I'm DSA. You're not some kind of dumbass pointless futile Trotskyist, are you?!

 

[UltraChad]

View attachment 2451212

When you're a fuckin' retard and don't actually understand politics.

 

[UltraChad]

I don’t recall mentioning the “B” word.

You don't have to say it explicitly we know what the fuck you're talking about.

That relations are currently strained doesn’t change that; it rather shows that systemic erosion of the US system is at a point where the institutions and processes of state are no longer capable of hiding that disintegration from the eyes of the world.

Well that's what happens when 1/2 the country attacks and undermines the institutions and processes. Democrats literally want the USA destroyed. They're doing a pretty good job.

The inability to hide it was the media's failure.

Do you really think that a US rampage would be seen by the world as anything else?

What rampage??? Do you really think that securing the border and not being a communist shit hole is a "rampage"??

 

[Politruk]

His work helped to intellectual ground socialist movements by articulating a clear vision of the society that could emerge from the struggles of the working class.

Marx did not do that. It was his gravest omission. He never described that society, or how a communist economy would actually work. He seem to have assumed that once the proletarian revolution burst the capitalist integument, everything would just fall into place -- what to do next would be obvious. Critics say Marxist economics always fail. But Marxist economics cannot be said to ever have failed, because they have never been tried, because they cannot be tried, because they never were articulated. Centralized authoritarian state Stalinism and the Spanish anarcho-syndicalism of independent collectives both can claim, with equal justice, to manifest Marx' vision.

 

[UltraChad]

Marx did not do that. It was his gravest omission. He never described that society, or how a communist economy would actually work.

Because he couldn't....and neither has anyone else.

Probably a big part of why it has a literal 100% TOTAL FAILURE RATE for over a century now.

That it's a self contradicting, short sighted ideology based in basic chimp envy and fact free fee fees is probably why that rate of failure is so perfect.

You literally have to be a moron that can't see past the end of their nose, or think you're high enough up in the food chain that you'll get to be part of the elite that takes advantage of all those morons to actually support something as fuckin' retarded as socialism.