[annatar1914]

I just saw Tulsi Gabbard on FOX News tonight. She is continuing her bid for President of the U.S.A. even though the Democrats changed the rules to eliminate her and are ignoring her, as if she does not exist. That is what you might call stubbornness.

Well, she's got more of a manly spirit than almost any of the other Democratic Party contenders in 2020, catamites and loathsome parasites that they are and were. It's probably best that she keep running and also not be associated with these fools; 2024 might be a better option for her.

[ckaihatsu]

No, you didn't. You simply wrote the words "full automation" with a question mark at the end of it.

Oh, okay, well, please excuse me then. Perhaps it was a bit too casual. I meant 'Does your self-description of 'communist' also extend out to a call for 'full automation', so as to liberate proletarians from class exploitation and repression?'


---

No, my use of the term is usually within a *political* -- not technological -- context, as mentioned previously:

Which is inherently reactionary. You are essentially gambling with the lives of the working class and the safety of racial minorities while teleologically believing that social breakdown always leads to socialist revolution.

Well, I mentioned the *results* this time around -- there have been left-populist-type protests, for months on end, in several non-U.S. countries in this past year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_2019


I can't agree that political accelerationism is inherently reactionary. I do agree with the quote '[struggles motivated by] the whip of counterrevolution', though I certainly wouldn't *prefer* such. I'd much rather see *gains* for the world's working class, which has to come from politically-conscious class struggle, anyway / regardless.

So just to be clear, you're comparing the election of Donald Trump to the Kornilov Coup?

Yes.

That is simply not accurate as the Euromaidan also contained leftists, social democrats, liberals, etc. alongside clerical, conservative, reactionary and fascist elements that quickly became predominant, in a massive effort to thwart the usurpation of Ukrainian sovereignty by Moscow. If anything it's a good example of why accelerationism is a dangerous and bankrupt philosophy.

Okay, yes, that would be a good example of accelerationism being dangerous.

I don't subscribe to accelerationism as a *philosophy* -- rather, it could be considered as an 'assessment of the resulting empirical political trajectory that's less-than-desired'.


---

There is a popular basis for fascism today because enough people believe that the excesses of global capitalism are being caused by communist conspirators.

I *dispute* this claim, and prefer to call it an imagined red-scare, perpetrated by the likes of Trump, that has *not* been well-received by the U.S. population, especially as evidenced by wide support for the "socialist" candidate Bernie Sanders.

I didn't say anything about Trump in this instance. The ideas of the Alt-Right have been metastasizing for years before that fateful evening in November 2016, including the rise of right-wing conspiracy theories that conflate international finance capital with socialism, communism, and progressive-forwardness as part of an emerging anti-Semitic cosmos. You would know this if you were actually studying the contemporary fascist movement and its development.

Okay, acknowledged, and, no, I'm obviously not keeping active tabs on the contemporary fascist movement, except for major events like Charlottesville.

I see your point now that you're providing source material. Does this movement tie-into the Russia-blaming that's going on from the Democrats at all?

I still have to maintain, though, that society these days is *not* racially polarized or physically combative, the way it was in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, during the civil rights movement. There are many societal racial issues left unaddressed, though, as ever, as typified in the Ferguson revolt.


---

I believe I'm being perfectly sensible about this. I don't see how you can effectively measure 'popular support' in this instance as it's kind of abstract (what does it mean?). It also seems like a bit of a false premise because historically fascists have seized power as forceful political minorities. Presumably, significant numbers in society support the military and the police and security apparatuses and the cultural institutions that conceal those interests, and this is really where it all begins before these sections of society are intensified in times of crisis and are swept up into any fascist revolution seemingly overnight.

Offhand I recall news reports from the past year or two in which individual fascists, or even networks of them, have been uncovered by authorities, with the infiltrators arrested.

Your ignorance and limited knowledge of the situation is not an argument.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying that I *do recall* news items that are congruent with this dynamic of fascist infiltration of the military and police.

On your previous point about 'popular support', I have to point to the overwhelming, prevailing *anti-war* sentiment in the U.S. and world, which has even faltered NATO and is an excellent example of 'popular support' (for no war).

Perhaps with less dogma and more self-criticism you would recognize where you might in fact be downplaying the fascist threat.

I think it's going to take a few rounds of back-and-forth to adjust here -- you're misunderstanding my 'accelerationist' take to be one of fundamental philosophy or politics, and that's *not* the case.

Also in no case have I made any kind of apologetics for the fascist threat, so you're overstating here.

Btw, I read through 'White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo' yesterday, and would be good with any discussions about it.

[ckaihatsu]

Also:


Germany: Tens of thousands take to the streets against right-wing terror

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... a-f25.html

[Donna]

Oh, okay, well, please excuse me then. Perhaps it was a bit too casual. I meant 'Does your self-description of 'communist' also extend out to a call for 'full automation', so as to liberate proletarians from class exploitation and repression?'

No. I don't think it even makes much sense to 'call' for automation, seeing as it is part of the uneven dynamic of labor efficiency under capitalism and could potentially be catastrophic for working class communities. Automation-positive politicos like Andrew Yang also openly desire to gut the welfare state and replace it with UBI programs financed by VATs, which in the long term will probably just work out as the generalized destruction of the welfare state and another pivot for neoliberalism. However, it is difficult to not imagine a democratic form of automation being part of a communistic society.

Well, I mentioned the *results* this time around -- there have been left-populist-type protests, for months on end, in several non-U.S. countries in this past year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_of_2019

I can't agree that political accelerationism is inherently reactionary. I do agree with the quote '[struggles motivated by] the whip of counterrevolution', though I certainly wouldn't *prefer* such. I'd much rather see *gains* for the world's working class, which has to come from politically-conscious class struggle, anyway / regardless.

If what you're doing is encouraging the radicalization of left-populist movements, then aren't you more of an agitator than an accelerationist? Accelerationism, as it is understood in discourse in North America, is the intentional acceleration of late capitalism, i.e. a favorable view of social crises and a belief that pauperization and immiseration of the working class is the only way it will become revolutionary again.

Yes.

If you mean to say that Trump is the mature and degenerated form of a Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution that exploited the rise of Maoism, I could agree with that.

Okay, yes, that would be a good example of accelerationism being dangerous.

I don't subscribe to accelerationism as a *philosophy* -- rather, it could be considered as an 'assessment of the resulting empirical political trajectory that's less-than-desired'.

Can this really be called accelerationism though?

Okay, acknowledged, and, no, I'm obviously not keeping active tabs on the contemporary fascist movement, except for major events like Charlottesville.

I see your point now that you're providing source material. Does this movement tie-into the Russia-blaming that's going on from the Democrats at all?

Why would it? I fail to see how the DNC's attempts to scandalize Donald Trump has anything to do with fascism.

I still have to maintain, though, that society these days is *not* racially polarized or physically combative, the way it was in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, during the civil rights movement. There are many societal racial issues left unaddressed, though, as ever, as typified in the Ferguson revolt.

Whatever progress has been made since the civil rights movement can be wiped out over night by a fascist revolution and it's debatable whether Jim Crow ever really went away, especially with the proliferation of racialized gerrymandering in the US.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm saying that I *do recall* news items that are congruent with this dynamic of fascist infiltration of the military and police.

Fair enough, but it's more than just a few isolated incidents. American police and military are undergoing a fascist metamorphosis.

On your previous point about 'popular support', I have to point to the overwhelming, prevailing *anti-war* sentiment in the U.S. and world, which has even faltered NATO and is an excellent example of 'popular support' (for no war).

I think this analysis of anti-war sentiment requires some additional nuance because it is regularly exploited by US fascists who present themselves as ardent doves as part of their recruiting strategies. Even Trump exploited this to some extent by advancing the idea that a vote for Hillary Clinton was a vote for a catastrophic war with Russia.

I think it's going to take a few rounds of back-and-forth to adjust here -- you're misunderstanding my 'accelerationist' take to be one of fundamental philosophy or politics, and that's *not* the case.

Also in no case have I made any kind of apologetics for the fascist threat, so you're overstating here.

Btw, I read through 'White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo' yesterday, and would be good with any discussions about it.

Again, fair enough, I will be careful with those insinuations moving forward. You did specify political accelerationism though, and based on what you described (as a sort of trend analysis I think) you're using the term differently from contemporary usage.

[ckaihatsu]

No. I don't think it even makes much sense to 'call' for automation, seeing as it is part of the uneven dynamic of labor efficiency under capitalism and could potentially be catastrophic for working class communities. Automation-positive politicos like Andrew Yang also openly desire to gut the welfare state and replace it with UBI programs financed by VATs, which in the long term will probably just work out as the generalized destruction of the welfare state and another pivot for neoliberalism. However, it is difficult to not imagine a democratic form of automation being part of a communistic society.

Okay, thank you. It's a thorough treatment, and I agree.

If what you're doing is encouraging the radicalization of left-populist movements, then aren't you more of an agitator than an accelerationist?

Yes, sure.

Accelerationism, as it is understood in discourse in North America, is the intentional acceleration of late capitalism, i.e. a favorable view of social crises and a belief that pauperization and immiseration of the working class is the only way it will become revolutionary again.

Well, again, I don't take this line to the extent of being a *philosophy* or politics. To me it's more of an after-the-fact *description* rather than a line to tout in advance of events.

If you mean to say that Trump is the mature and degenerated form of a Reagan-Thatcher counter-revolution that exploited the rise of Maoism, I could agree with that.

Okay, sounds good over here.

Can this really be called accelerationism though?

It's a handy term, but, no, I wouldn't *advocate* it.


---

Okay, acknowledged, and, no, I'm obviously not keeping active tabs on the contemporary fascist movement, except for major events like Charlottesville.

I see your point now that you're providing source material. Does this movement tie-into the Russia-blaming that's going on from the Democrats at all?

Why would it? I fail to see how the DNC's attempts to scandalize Donald Trump has anything to do with fascism.

Okay, thanks, agreed.

Whatever progress has been made since the civil rights movement can be wiped out over night by a fascist revolution and it's debatable whether Jim Crow ever really went away, especially with the proliferation of racialized gerrymandering in the US.

I'm beginning to formulate a theory / hypothesis which is that, these days, it's the *state* which is the cause of our current social ills, almost *entirely*, as with the election-based example you're mentioning.

I've been going through the 'checklist' mentally, and it really looks like everyday civil society is almost completely 'detached' from the machinations-from-above that foment (institutional) racism, sexism, and so on.

Fair enough, but it's more than just a few isolated incidents. American police and military are undergoing a fascist metamorphosis.

Okay, acknowledged.

I think this analysis of anti-war sentiment requires some additional nuance because it is regularly exploited by US fascists who present themselves as ardent doves as part of their recruiting strategies. Even Trump exploited this to some extent by advancing the idea that a vote for Hillary Clinton was a vote for a catastrophic war with Russia.

Okay -- I meant it as a reinforcement for my point that there is such a thing as public opinion, or mass civil society, which happens to be significantly more socially progressive than the state is.

But, yes, I hear you on your point -- again, thorough.

Again, fair enough, I will be careful with those insinuations moving forward. You did specify political accelerationism though, and based on what you described (as a sort of trend analysis I think) you're using the term differently from contemporary usage.

Yes, I tend to make my own meanings, but I'm always ready to clarify and knead-out any ambiguities.

[Truth To Power]

While I agree that Western European culture is superior to others, I would like to add that, it is necessary for us have to consider whether the said inferiority is solely related to race, or whether it is related to other aspects, for example the social environment they are in. We also should identify strong points of a culture (they must exist otherwise the race would not be still standing here).

A culture's strong point can be simply that it focuses exclusively on securing its own existence and expansion, as Islam does via forcible conversions, capital punishment for apostasy, etc. Like cancer, it is still here because it is totally devoted to its own expansion, even though that expansion will ultimately kill the host and lead to its own death.

[Patrickov]

A culture's strong point can be simply that it focuses exclusively on securing its own existence and expansion, as Islam does via forcible conversions, capital punishment for apostasy, etc. Like cancer, it is still here because it is totally devoted to its own expansion, even though that expansion will ultimately kill the host and lead to its own death.

Human beings have consciousness while cancer doesn't. I only use cancer to describe a group of people if I immensely hate them.

Muslims have their flaws but no group of people can use exclusively violence or coercion to keep themselves up for more than, say, a few years. Some people must benefit from the system if it is to be around.

[Truth To Power]

Human beings have consciousness while cancer doesn't. I only use cancer to describe a group of people if I immensely hate them.

I was describing how the actual characteristics of Islam and cancer are similar, and the process they imply. Much of Islamic doctrine is clearly aimed exclusively at self-expansion by forcible means -- forcible conversion of victims who then go on to forcibly convert more victims -- just as cancer is devoted to expanding by forcibly taking over the body's resources and devoting them to reproducing itself.

Muslims have their flaws but no group of people can use exclusively violence or coercion to keep themselves up for more than, say, a few years.

Islam also uses lies, of course. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.

Some people must benefit from the system if it is to be around.

The clerics benefit: they get to live well by conning their victims, and without contributing anything of value. The most complete power you can have over people is making them believe things you know are not true.

[SolarCross]

Human beings have consciousness while cancer doesn't. I only use cancer to describe a group of people if I immensely hate them.

Muslims have their flaws but no group of people can use exclusively violence or coercion to keep themselves up for more than, say, a few years. Some people must benefit from the system if it is to be around.

I think you have to distinguish between the host of the ideology, the Muslim, and the ideology itself, Islam. You might love your dog but you can't treat him the same way after he has been infected with rabies. It is not your dog you have put down but the rabies, if you can do it without killing the dog so much the better.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you have to distinguish between the host of the ideology, the Muslim, and the ideology itself, Islam. You might love your dog but you can't treat him the same way after he has been infected with rabies. It is not your dog you have put down but the rabies, if you can do it without killing the dog so much the better.

So, metaphors aside, what are you suggesting here?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Genocide?

[SolarCross]

So, metaphors aside, what are you suggesting here?

That the ideology is the problem not the flesh and blood people. To use your jargon they just need re-educating. Of course with Islam that is not so easy because the ideology has seen that coming.. and it has counter-measures. It has very severe punishments for apostasy for example. Anyone who was born into the cult has a tough time leaving no matter the inducements given that doing so puts them in line for a beheading.

[ckaihatsu]

That the ideology is the problem not the flesh and blood people. To use your jargon they just need re-educating. Of course with Islam that is not so easy because the ideology has seen that coming.. and it has counter-measures. It has very severe punishments for apostasy for example. Anyone who was born into the cult has a tough time leaving no matter the inducements given that doing so puts them in line for a beheading.

As usual your side is *oversimplifying* with your criticisms and proposals.

*Every* religion has these problems that you're mentioning, because of their outdatedness and group-identity parameters. Society no longer *needs* tribalist-type groupings that use faith in supernatural beliefs for the sake of social cohesion / groupthink.

Modern society has *civil society* and rule-of-law, for the most part, so backwards-minded 'special' religious groupings just cause more problems than they're worth these days.

I'm not a Maoist so I don't have any politics that includes 're-education camps'. My line, as I've explicitly stated, is 'don't be a counterrevolutionary'.

You're oversimplifying anyway, since Islam contains a range of political lines that don't all reconcile.

[ckaihatsu]

.

[SolarCross]

As usual your side is *oversimplifying* with your criticisms and proposals.

*Every* religion has these problems that you're mentioning, because of their outdatedness and group-identity parameters. Society no longer *needs* tribalist-type groupings that use faith in supernatural beliefs for the sake of social cohesion / groupthink.

Modern society has *civil society* and rule-of-law, for the most part, so backwards-minded 'special' religious groupings just cause more problems than they're worth these days.

I'm not a Maoist so I don't have any politics that includes 're-education camps'. My line, as I've explicitly stated, is 'don't be a counterrevolutionary'.

You're oversimplifying anyway, since Islam contains a range of political lines that don't all reconcile.

Well you are not the right person to discuss this with because you are possessed by a crazy ideology too. It prevents you understanding anything.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
Genocide?

Realism and logical consistency. Islam is a doctrine that explicitly incites its adherents to commit violent and even grotesque crimes, including murder. Incitement to commit a crime is a crime, so until Islam renounces its incitements to violent crime and murder, it should be considered a crime to spread its doctrines, same as any other incitement to murder is a crime. Outrageous incitements to violent crime should not be permitted to hide behind "freedom of religion."

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power
@SolarCross

Your Islamophobic arguments are off topic.

The only way it relates to the actual topic is as follows:

During the Cold War, the USA and other people on the capitalist side deliberately supported and trained Islamists as part of a strategy to make Afghanistan a waste of money for the USSR.

And now your side has declared victory there and left the country in the midst of a civil war with warlords and chaos.

[ingliz]

consistency... beheading

How are you being 'consistent' when your own god expects you to smash an Iraqi baby's head against a rock?

9. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Psalm 137

[SolarCross]

@Pants-of-dog
I would say it is tangential rather than off-topic. This thread is about the secret motives of communist propagandists. Well islam also has ideologists with an agenda of world domination. It can help to understand a thing by comparing it to similar things. Some of the methods we could employ to defend human civilisation from them might also work for the others too.

[Pants-of-dog]

....ad hominems and generalisations....

The capitalist UK is still a strong ally of Saudi Arabia.