1d ago

Ruleducation

We've reached the second iteration. There isn't a lot separating us from the third iteration. And the material conditions were bad enough, at the latest, sometime between the first and the second iterations.

People know socialism exists. People are experiencing sufficiently bad material conditions that they want change.

People have picked up neoliberal ideas from living in a neoliberal society. These ideas give people a framework to process their material conditions so that they do not rise up in sufficient numbers. People need to learn that these ideas are part of an ideology designed to enrich the owner class at the expense of the worker class. Things will continue to get worse unless people understand that everyone needs to own their work.

This education is work that still needs to be done after hypothetically defeating the current fascist dictatorships and is probably part of what will be needed to defeat them.

I keep having this conversation with people and seeing the accelerationist line of reasoning, so I wanted to address it with a visual.

47 comments

Wait, you think THAT's the loop?
Nah, what's happening is the edges of neoliberalism are moving right. They are absolutely checking out from the neoliberal agenda, they are just becoming fascists in the process.
The disaffection is there. They are rising up in sufficient numbers.
To vote for Trump and other fascists.
Accelerationism doesn't make sense because the loop is pushing people right. Do that faster, they keep going right faster. There is no steam buildup for left-wing revolution here. If anything the left has been lazy and the longer this goes the more ground they have to make up. There is no socialist revolution coming, there is a fascist dictatorship takeover at the end of that process. Russia is the model, just... different year.
The question is why the left wing is failing to divert that flow of dissatisfaction towards its political side with anywhere near that amount of efficiency. Call it education if you want, I call it weak propaganda. Bad political action either way.
- it's because fascism is easy, simple, and feels safer than stepping out of learned helplessness
  
  Right, and if you have a minute I may tell you about the tragedy of Darth Plagueis.
  This is not about the dark side being easier and more appealing, this is about them having weaponized social media. It's a material problem, not a moral one.
  
  I'm afraid some ideas really are just easier to accept. In every field I've studied or worked in, people very rarely accept unfortunate truths, instead believing that which is easier to stomach.
  For example, you believe that leftists just aren't "trying hard enough," when the reality is that leftism doesn't have access to the same tools that its opposition has. Fascists, tankies, or liberals can use the powerful forces of group identity and hierarchy to win. At the end of the day, they all function as similar machines that seek to gain the most amount of power and control for themselves as possible. They inevitably entangle with national identities, bureaucracy, religion and cultural values in whatever way they need to.
  Social media is not the problem; you're just blaming technology because it's easier than thinking leftism is uniquely unsuited to take control in this ecosystem. It has the "authenticity" every system markets, but it can't just allow itself to become a competitive machine without just becoming Marxist-Leninism. It can free people from the machine, but the machines compete better with each other by mechanizing us.
  It's not about morals holding leftism back, but morals being incompatible with welding power over your opposition. It's the will to power of societal constructs making everyone's lives hallow and miserable. Our happiness is instrumental in forces larger than ourselves and always has been. Our freedom isn't at war with other people's freedom, but the success of things that aren't individuals.
  
  I call BS. Leftism isn't a minority stance by necessity. There have been plenty of popular and populist left wing movements. Many got to power. Some kept it. Some even did all of that under representative democracy.
  There is no reason left wing stances should be harder to communicate over social media than they were through newsletters, often while being outright outlawed.
  I refuse to be so self-indulgent to think my elders were able to put out left wing media with an illegal printer while being persecuted but mastering Facebook was beyond us.
  
  You're not wrong, but the game leftism needs to play isn't gonna look the same as right wing ideologies. It can do things the right wing can only maintain off of hype, which is enough for the right to ascend, but not to maintain.
  The biggest thing leftism can do is kneecap systems without the systems ever fully getting rid of them. It was heavily co-opted and redirected by liberalism, but with liberalism dying, it can reassert itself.
  I'm sure the opportunistic tankies will waste a lot of time and energy, but anarchy is the real way forward. It probably can't serve as a status to be reached, but as an ultimate check on the power of whatever system is in control. It needs to assert people as goal of society, not the means. Organizations cannot be seen as allies ever, only monsters to restrain and keep watch of forever.
  
  Well, the idea is you ascend this way, you maintain by being actually competent at governing using solid policies that improve things for people.
  That should be an advantage, you know? Actually having a solid framework for economics and social policy. It should take care of that whole "maintaining" part once the ascendancy is dealt with.
  I think a lot of leftists, and particularly terminally online lefitsts, have grown used to not having to deliver that part and are more comfortable feeling like morally superior underdogs. I have no interest in those. Like I was saying elsewhere, the only leftists that are real leftists are the ones that hold some political power.
  
  The problem with "real political power" is how the power itself can do the thinking for you. Your tribe or ingroup as an inhuman entity has no desire for anything but winning. If you're not careful, it convinces you to take the realist path to victory.
  
  We can worry about the dehumanizing nature of political power once we have the political power.
  I'd rather have that conversation about the non-fascist guys at our leisure than take solace in the moral harm the fascists are suffering from their abuse of power.
  
  It's not a problem of moral purity, but simply being another standard agent of the system. All efforts by well meaning activists in my country failed to resist being another pawn, or not gain substantial power. Capitalism effectively neutralized left wing threats by keeping the working class unwilling to question power. Bolder action with more urgency was necessary, but team blue held everything back.
  Now that the liberal democratic order is dead, the rules are different, and bolder action is necessary for anyone to hold power. The threat level is higher, with state violence escalating faster than even I expected. You need to utilize violence to have any chance of resisting fascism, even if it's the "non-violent" mass movement strategy of MLK Jr (although i doubt we have enough time for that)
  
  Who is talking about well meaning activists? Who is talking about activists at all?
  I mean, activists are great, good for them, but the activist label inherently means you are deploying activism as a replacement for institutional power.
  I care about left wing politicians, not activists.
  You are right that this conversation was for last year, or the election before that or the one before that or the one before that. But yeah, no, I'm not letting the failures of the US left define the playbook. Maybe instead of passing your perception of this stuff as universal you guys could look at the parts of the world actually getting results. Let Lula tag in for a while or something. Flip Mexico inside out like a sock and give Sheinbaum a go. Single most popular prime minister on the planet at the moment.
  "You need to utilize violence" my ass. You need structured power, institutional strongholds and a network of activated supporters.
  It's my own fault for engaging with US politics at all. I said I'd cut those off after the Trump inauguration and I've been slipping.
- It doesn't read much like she necessarily supports accelerationism. If she does then the post will be removed as it is a harmful ideology.
  The left is growing worldwide, especially among the youth (I only included some stuff on the US, but you see similar trends in quite a few countries). Remember most people in the US would vote democrat if they voted, which while not socialism is certainly left of the republicans. They just have a major problem with believing that voting will not matter, with gerrymandering, and with anti voting schemes.
  The statistics in my country aren't quite the same in that we don't have a geriatric fascist party, but there is a trend of polarization with people moving away from the center towards the left and the right.
  Though I do agree that we really do need to be doing a better job of reaching out to people. Here in norway the left seems to be struggling because our arguments are less emotion based, because unlike the populists we aren't throwing everything behind a small number of emotionally charged topics and we don't have disingenuous gurus or other big social media influencers lying to kids on our behalf. We don't do a good job of telling people the benefits of leftist policies in a way that really hits them and we don't have enough outreach for what we say to reach them. There's a clear bias in the news and in social media against the left which hampers us as well, both within norway but especially on international platforms.
  
  That is a depressing chart, honestly. A few percentage points at best in the same timeframe when the neofascist US right went from a radical wing of the Republican party they were hesitant about tapping into and into running the entire country. Twice.
  During Trump's first term the positive view of socialism among Dems actually went down two points before recovering to five points up? That's rookie numbers. Trump went from reviled to actually becoming an outright felon and then to a landslide victory handing him control of every branch of government in the same time period.
  And that's even more shameful once you remember that for Americans "socialist" includes "social democrats".
  There are left wing parties that have marginally better elsewhere, and some are even in government, largely as junior parties in colaitions within parliamentary regimes. The only exception would be Latin America where there have been bigger swings back and forth, but that wasn't that rare there in the first place.
  I don't think it's about "telling people about the benefits" or "outreach". I think traditional powers have what's left of the information gatekeepers, the alt right has dominance of online discourse and the left has no idea how to use the Internet for anything other than arguing amongst themselves and no idea how to pierce the old media in any reliable fashion.
  It is genuinely depressing, and threads like these show zero self-awareness and very little self-criticism. Ascendant neofascists come from some mix of hostile propaganda and radical actors prodding at the information weaknesses of liberal regimes very consciously and very aggressively. The left has never been able to keep that sort of decentralized coordination going for any amount of time without decomposing into niche groups all over again.
  
  It could be better yes, but most right wing parties are doing rather well because of old (read dying) people, while young people are overwhelmingly leftist.
  the left has no idea how to use the Internet for anything other than arguing amongst themselves
  I disagree heavily with this. That's mostly a thing pushed by tankies, the ones we argue with. But then arguing with tankies isn't productive either, it is a distraction at best.
  It is genuinely depressing, and threads like these show zero self-awareness and very little self-criticism
  What exactly do you propose if not outreach? You seem to criticize the idea of spreading awareness in general. Did you read the parts where I also said the same stuff about what you call information gatekeepers? I should note I am also heavily in favor of direct action and unionization, but doing those things also requires outreach. I think really the best thing to do is irl word of mouth, irl political participation, and establishing good leftist spaces online (without tankies).
  
  It's not just tankies, beyond Lemmie's specific local rift.
  It's left leaning liberals with social democrats, social democrats with gramscian leftists, gramscian leftists and classic marxists, all of the above with tankies, or with whatever cosplay anarchists dwell in places like these. And much more, depending on the local political landscape.
  Neofascists don't even feel the need to agree with themselves, they'll argue one thing and the opposite as long as they get to stir some stuff up online, "own the libs" and win some arguments. There is nowhere near that level of propaganda discipline and willingness to row in the same direction at any point of the left. They broke feminism in two (three or four, really, but a few of those chickens are still to get home) with the slightest of propaganda pressure. They didn't even need that much to make most left and center-left political coalitions crumble. At this point I assume they're trying to be gentle when making frustrated leftists stay home in elections because there's no challenge in it.
  My proposal? Take a page from their book. Prioritize wining arguments and mobilizing over practical policy, get to the policy once you've consolidated power. Complain that you're not allowed to deploy the full policy because of the other guys and the establishment all the way up. Never disagree with anybody willing to agree with you on anything. Never agree with a political rival. Never own the failures of the system. Find a scapegoat that works and push it.
  None of those things are ideological. But nobody on the left will suspend their purity tests to play in the playground we've built for ourselves.
  I'm all for dismantling that playground. It's toxic and grotesque. But you won't do that with "outreach" and "spreading awareness". You do that with hard, consolidated institutional power. They know. The left doesn't.
  
  Me oh my. Yeah no there are other ways than "consolidating power" and lying to people. You can engage people emotionally without being manipulative and still push good policies.
  Also, that all sounds very US centric and honestly a bit wrong. It is usually the libs that deplatform and refuse to cooperate with socialists. That's certainly the case within the democratic party. Same here in norway, with liberals not working with socialists (and rather the populists instead), and with the soc dems only ever reluctantly cooperating with us. It was announced, to my joy, a few days ago that LO (a big union) will finally give some money to the red party (a socialist party) because the reds getting enough votes is the only way the social democrats will win.
  Edit: This is also my general understanding of politics everywhere. That centrists and right wingers (libs) have no interest in working with anyone left of them. It's certainly how fascists have won elections all around the world.
  
  I'm not in the US, let's start there. I am in a territory that is generally left-leaning and has a left-leaning government, let's set that next.
  And no, there are no other ways than consolidating power because a leftist without a government position is not useful to me at all. A leftist without a seat does not push good policies. They don't push any policies at all. Governments push policies. The only leftists who push good policies are in government.
  There is no need to lie to be engaging, but you do need to convince people. You need to present arguments and you need to win those arguments in the eyes of the people. You need to show the alternatives are doing poorly and create an image that they are incompetent and the cause of the current set of issues. Which should be easy, because they are, by and large.
  But that's not being done. The perception is that the left is deluded, splintered and naive. Those are all perceptions pushed by the right onto the left that the left sucks at dispelling. The implication in your response that popular, effective campaigning and grassroots political action is inherently immoral or requires immoral behavior is itself part of that problem. Hell, we are doing the thing right now. If we were on the fascist spectrum we wouldn't bother with this nitpicky argument and would just wait for whatever point of contention we can agree on and rally around it. We just suck at this.
  Look, it's ultimately a technical problem. The other side saw the communication tools had a flaw and exploited it. Not because they're smart, but because they had a million monkeys on typewriters tucked away online and they randomly figured out they could influence real world events for a laugh. And then the nazis caught wind.
  We missed that boat and then bought into their narrative that this was something they own that is evil and only they get to do, and so we're laying out a red carpet for them to own mainstream culture. It's excurciating to watch.
  
  You need to show the alternatives are doing poorly and create an image that they are incompetent and the cause of the current set of issues. Which should be easy, because they are, by and large.
  Well yeah. This we agree on, but it really did not sound like this is what you meant by what you wrote earlier.
  The implication in your response that popular, effective campaigning and grassroots political action is inherently immoral or requires immoral behavior is itself part of that problem.
  No? You read me wrong then.
  
  The perception is that the left is deluded, splintered and naive. Those are all perceptions pushed by the right onto the left that the left sucks at dispelling.
  You were pushing this earlier on in the convo
  
  Yeah, no, we suck at this, like I said.
  This conversation is not winning the culture wars. This is the exact purity argument that keeps the left from power.
  Find me a solution and I'll take it. But the solution can't be to keep doing what we're doing.
  
  This convo isn't infighting, even if it isn't very productive. Neither of us are denouncing any leftist ideologies and we won't be voting against the left if I'm reading you correctly.
  You are correct that something needs to change, and that thing is how we communicate with people. Deceit isn't necessary. It's the things you described that I had already described earlier that you for some reason then said was ineffectual before then suddenly supporting it when you were the one saying it?
  
  I'm not sure I follow.
  My concern is consistent: the way the left communicates, does propaganda and pushes issues is weak, fails to control the narrative and is further undermined by atomized, nuanced positions and infighting.
  The right has learned to push a more cohesive narrative in a social media landscape, largely by allowing themselves to be inconsistent and focusing on winning small arguments at every opportunity until one sticks, at which point they all rally behind it.
  The left sucks at that. Nobody will suspend their pet issues, nobody will poke at the mainstream to see what works, nobody will drop their short term goals to focus on the popular narratives for the chance of deploying impactful politics on those goals later.
  I find this negligent in the current political landscape, and it's letting the far right run away with converting dissatisfaction into votes, even on issues where the left clearly has the strongest argument.
  
  Here's a party doing exactly what you suggest. Notice how the party isn't exactly soaring in the statistics and is disliked by leftists as a result of all the bigotry.
  
  No, see, there's a difference between being good at using communication tools and being a bigot. That is part of the left's issue, too. The goal isn't to scapegoat the same people the right does, that typically does not work. The idea is to scapegoat the same people that are already being targeted (right wing politicians, large corporations, billionaires) effectively.
  
  You keep using the word scapegoat ? I find the way you speak rather iffy in general
  
  Aha. And that's the left putting the aesthetics of progressivism over the ethics and the politics of progressivisim.
  Again, I only care about talking like the good guys talk insofar it gets the good guys a position of political power. Not because we say the right things or we feel the right things or we have a consistent, morally homogeneous maximalist approach to improving the world, but because a butt in a chair can make the world marginally better for the rest.
  I'd be more lenient and mushy about that if we weren't in the process of the second rise of fascism. We're kind of in panic mode now.
  
  Scapegoating implies being deceitful. It's not about aesthetics.
  
  It is if the scapegoat is a rich guy without much actual influence but a flashy car. It is if it's some rich weirdo's kinks being paraded to make the moneyed class appear unethical or morally deranged.
  Think about how bad one has to be at this to have lost the public argument regarding marginalized trans people being a moral risk while Trump and the British royalty were engaged in the whole Epstein fiasco. And that's before the whole "lost in court to his pornstar lover" stuff went down.
  And they still won, rallied religious leaders around them, won again and successfully convinced the populace that queer people will attack their kids in school.
  It is political negligence of the highest order.

47 comments