those demons love free market capitalism right? It’d be a shame if some people got together to do a bit of praxis…
I think you need to take a little break from toxic R*dditor brain. We are all comrades here and you’re having a bit of a moment rather than communicating with comrades.
My point stands if you make it full BDS re: Texas. The SA boycott movement was also BDS, which you should already know if you’re feeling so comfortable loudly shitting on others about it.
Speaking of deflection and liberalism, your point is still not based on a historical or material analysis and is actually the line of The Economist.
Yeah, okay comrade, let’s talk about it.
Firstly, since we’re talking about the SA boycott movement, I’m sure you know that it built international support which could be funneled to the South Africans. I’m sure the temptation is great to make the obvious parallels to the United States, what with it being a settler colonial nation, however, the goal of the movement needs to be kept in mind here. This was not a movement to end capitalism, and, just as you might be tempted to draw parallels with the United States in their historical position, I might draw a parallel between the more Mensheviks leaning Workers Soviets and the avant-garde of the Kadets during the provincial government period following Tsar Nicolas’s abdication, and say that the ANC-SACP coalition shows that: Here was a development for the working class in so far as it was able to secure freedom for the native South Africans, but in liberal sense of the word freedom. And of course, we can all agree that this development is a good thing, but incomplete.
Not to mention the other fact: 1960’s did not see the rise of Neoliberalism. A movement that has completely eroded whatever aid existed following the anti-communist movements in the United States. To equate the two’s historic and material conditions neglects the previous 40 years of austerity and destruction of any class based solidarity. In other words, to bring up the SA BDS movement, its to try to make an equivalence which itself is not grounded in the material or historical realities. The self-reflection is absolutely lacking from you here comrade.
Now, what goal would a BDS re:Texas hope to accomplish?
There are no calls for material gains for the working class, sure there is racism, sexism, and settler-colonialism there, but that is not much more pronounced there compared to other, say, Southern States, or even really any states. The calls here are on the basis of ideological difference between liberals and populist reactionaries.
Perhaps you think that BDS re:Texas will provide a way to build anti-capitalism in the state of Texas. Surely, with along side a BDS movement there is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs? No? There isn’t? The support would be seized immediately?
Then what? You hope to see the comrades there build relationships with the bourgeois? Is that what is needed in the present moment in North America’s historical development? At the behest of not being “sectarian” I won’t go into my opinions on why this strategy is a losing one, but that is not the point. The point is, at present, the development of the reactionary efforts has taken on a more populist flavor than ever in the United States, which is entirely unlike the reactionary forces in SA. These reactionaries are actively recruiting disaffected members to do terrorism and target minorities and comrades in this state (see El Paso) and as their populism grows, so too will their aid networks, so too will their businesses which will remain free to move into Texas and aid their fellow reactionaries there, while targeting comrades.
The socialist program in America is not sufficiently developed, especially not in the South, and I won’t hear liberals advocate for the turning into martyrs of our comrades, to have to answer to these agitated-reactionaries, as their lives degrade through a BDS, while not being able to provide them the means of doing so, during a period of time where the preservation of, and development of a socialist program there is of paramount importance. You are advocating for the smothering in the cradle of the growth of socialism in Texas. Hence, why I term you, liberal.
[paraphrased] The SA boycott movement also did other things in solidarity.
OP proposed the idea of BDS for Texas. It’s not a fleshed out campaign to shit on, it’s a vague idea in the direction of BDS. This “criticism” has no purchase in their commentary, you would have to make up shit on their behalf to make it relevant; embedding solidarity campaigns is completely compatible with their idea at this stage and they’ve hardly rules it out, have they? Instead of suggesting this as a helpful component, you’ve chosen to do the actual fed shit of being extremely abrasive and calling people names with a brand new account.
Not to mention the other fact: 1960’s did not see the rise of Neoliberalism. (…)
The SA boycott movement in the imperial core didn’t pick up steam until the 70s and 80s. It was relatively fringe before this because they didn’t do tabling or really even talk to leftist groups in SA, instead sticking to insular leftist spaces and polite liberal democratic requests. Neoliberalism was developed during this period and the fundamental forces in question were already established for decades. The “Western powers” consistently rejected sanctions or even particularly critical commentary through the 60s, 70s, even the 80s, instead running interference for the forces for apartheid and wrapping it into Cold War strategies.
To equate the two’s historic and material conditions
Would be misrepresenting me and anyone else here.
Now, what goal would a BDS re:Texas hope to accomplish?
You could ask OP and contribute to a productive discussion of that question instead of calling them a fed and generally being the truly endearing combination of insulting and generally incorrect in your comments.
You’re basically fighting with your imagination for the next few paragraphs. Does a potential BDS Texas movement not have calls for material gains, policies to alleviate oppression, try to build socialism? This discourse is absurd, OP is just talking about having a BDS for Texas. You are free to try and help define it if you think there are (still unspecified) material conditions that necessitate a particular approach to achieve goals you think are important. As of now, it doesn’t exist at all.
I’ll just point to this quote as an example of how ridiculous this imaginary discourse is: “Then what? You hope to see the comrades there build relationships with the bourgeois?”
The point is, at present, the development of the reactionary efforts has taken on a more populist flavor than ever in the United States, which is entirely unlike the reactionary forces in SA.
Okay you finally got to the point. But this isn’t particularly material, either. The forces of reaction are in power in TX. Why you believe the “populist” nature of reactionary Texans matters is unclear given that they get their way within the state government. The “populism” in question is highly partisan, comes from a position of power, and places the needs and material status of a privileged minority over those of the oppressed in a way that is highly racialized.
There will of course be differences that are important to leverage, but there is nothing about what you’re pointing to that suggests a higher barrier or a qualitative difference that undermines BDS.
These reactionaries are actively recruiting disaffected members to do terrorism and target minorities and comrades in this state (see El Paso) and as their populism grows, so too will their aid networks, so too will their businesses which will remain free to move into Texas and aid their fellow reactionaries there, while targeting comrades.
There’s no point attached to this narrative. Is it that the forces of reaction are better-organized and better-funded than those of, say, Israel or SA? I’m going to disagree with that. Is it that there are more reactionaries organized into violence and cadres than there are leftists? Okay, I agree, but this is not different from early anti-apartheid organization and there’s no reason stated for why this is a no-go for BDS.
The socialist program in America is not sufficiently developed, especially not in the South, and I won’t hear liberals advocate for the turning into martyrs of our comrades,
Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom.
Boycotts with tabling are useful for building support for and membership of socialist orgs, by the way. You should try it sometime, since your dismissiveness makes it clear you haven’t.
to have to answer to these agitated-reactionaries, as their lives degrade through a BDS
There’s the line from The Economist, again.
You are advocating for the smothering in the cradle of the growth of socialism in Texas. Hence, why I term you, liberal.
You’re telling yourself stories until you feel comfortable insulting others and are acting like a wrecker. And again, your logic on the impact of boycotts is literally a bullshit centuries-old line from The Economist that has been used to oppose all consumption-based tactics for organizing against oppression, including slavery and child labor.
[Paraphrased] “You are the doing the fed posting”
I think that me deciding to engage in this actual discussion with you should be proof enough, but also if you just look through my history, you’ll see a post where I flat out apologize to another person for being wrong about something. Not to mention, this is not a congress of international working people, this is “hexbear.net” a “kinda leftists website”. Apologies for not engaging in the most principled possible debate imaginable off to start, but here we are, and that at least should give some credibility, considering I’m being at least somewhat consistent at this point. Also, spare me your tone-policing, I get that you think its relevant to bring this up because you’re perhaps thinking “oh a fed would absolutely come in here and be an antagonistic as possible”, but I’ve taken a decidedly different approach since then, so you can go ahead and stop now.
“The SA boycott movement in the imperial core didn’t pick up steam until the 70s and 80s”
During the development and deployment of Neoliberalism, the policies and erosion’s to the working class haven’t had the time to fully develop. Even still, I allude to this fact you are bringing up, when I say “40 years of austerity and destruction”. There can be absolutely no doubt, that the state of international socialism is at a lower point now than it was in the 70’s and 80’s. Here also, I’m not really sure what the point is of sneaking in the point about western powers rejecting BDS policies, but how this is coming off to me is to give you some kind of logos to say “the western powers were against it so it must’ve been actually good”, but we’ve already said that this wasn’t overall an anti-capitalist movement, it overall was a movement to garner freedom for native South Africans. I think it’s important to note that, the reason it probably was successful at all is because it wasn’t explicitly anti-capitalist, but here’s the thing, I don’t actually know the exact historical nuances of South Africa during the anti-apartheid movement, and unless you’re willing to start sharing some sources, I don’t think you do either.
"To equate the two’s historic and material conditions
Would be misrepresenting me and anyone else here."
You’re the one that brings up the SA BDS movement, reflexively. Note that you don’t go on to say what this misrepresentation is exactly.
“You could ask OP and contribute to a productive discussion of that question instead of calling them a fed and generally being the truly endearing combination of insulting and generally incorrect in your comments.”
This is just tone-policing. You’re right though, I could’ve just decided to have a giant big brain discussion on someone’s post that was literally “haha they like free markets, lets let em have it and do a praxis”, but let’s be honest, I’m doing this now and you’re taking the ethos too far. Also if I’m “incorrect” in general, there hasn’t really been much in the way of you showing me where I’m incorrect? There has been 3 posts, 1 of me trying to do a “le epic dunk” on the OP, 1 of me trying to do a lesser “le epic dunk” on you, and then the one you are replying to presently.
“Boycotts with tabling are useful for building support for and membership of socialist orgs, by the way. You should try it sometime, since your dismissiveness makes it clear you haven’t.”
I didn’t know it was a competition for who has the most credentials here, but yeah, I’m involved in socialist organizing, in my local area, there’s not a ton of stuff going on so, I guess sorry for not living wherever you live. My dismissiveness is towards the idea of doing this BDS for Texas, and I’m outlining my reasons why, not that Boycotts and Tabling don’t work, because it clearly worked, for anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, which I’ve already said is a good thing.
“You’re telling yourself stories until you feel comfortable insulting others and are acting like a wrecker. And again, your logic on the impact of boycotts is literally a bullshit centuries-old line from The Economist that has been used to oppose all consumption-based tactics for organizing against oppression, including slavery and child labor.”
You keep equating “Boycotts” and “BDS” as though these are the exact same things. They are not. One is far more punitive than the other, and I don’t know how you can even sit here and act principled while you’re doing it. Not to mention, “The Economist” line on this presupposes an actual organized movement with actual support networks and power, because they are fighting in the interest of the bourgeoisie. My “line” on this is literally saying “this cannot work because there are no conditions present now or in the foreseeable future for this to be something that can possibly happen”. We aren’t advocating for BDS in the periphery of the empire, we are talking about advocating for BDS in the literal belly of a decaying empire*.
“This discourse is absurd, OP is just talking about having a BDS for Texas. You are free to try and help define it if you think there are (still unspecified) material conditions that necessitate a particular approach to achieve goals you think are important.”
I’m replying to the whole snippet here: simply put, we are currently talking about it, so I don’t know why you’re still going on about this? I literally am engaging in this discussion now, so let’s move on from whining about it. Also, why is your reply littered with little “gotchas” like “… there are (still unspecified) material conditions…”? I mean this is pure projection, where on one had you want me to engage in a thorough and peaceable discourse, while on the other hand you do not yourself engage in a thorough and peaceful discourse, you could instead literally just say “Can you please enumerate what material conditions that you believe are lacking” but you’re choosing not to, and feel free to just say it plainly why you are choosing not to do this.
In any case, the material conditions I believe are lacking, while not explicitly enumerated are implied in this portion of my “ridiculous and imaginary discourse” where I ask if you believe there “… is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs?”.
Either way, it’s telling, and convenient for your response, that you’ve chosen to not engage with this to simply write it off as some “absurd” self imagined fight, when I’m legitimately asking you to answer for what you think a BDS on Texas is going to accomplish. A very notable thing you decided to not give an answer to was: Texas is a settler colonial region of America, it is a racist region of America, and it is a sexist region of America. But find for me a region in North America where that is not the case? If you cannot find a place where that is not the case, then, Texas is not any different the the rest of the United States. As well as this, this is approaching “orange man bad” levels of liberalism, since, the only reasons left to you or anyone who’s pro-BDS for texas at this point is: “Do BDS because we don’t like the GOP” and “Do BDS because I think it will help build socialism there”. Point #1 is liberalism. Point #2 is not capable of being manifested at all currently, no matter how much you want it to be the case, because the support networks for socialism in the US is at absolute infancy levels. Socialist orgs cannot attend to the needs of their local communities, let alone Texan comrades, who, in this imaginary world where a BDS is done, will need as much resources as possible, since the “state” will in all likelihood seize as much of it as they can.
In any case, if you do answer these questions later, because of a misunderstanding of what the intent was there, consider all of these “conveniences” and “telling” parts of your response to be forgiven, since, I understand that when you’re trying to win the epic debate (and not discuss amongst comrades) sometimes things are misunderstood.
“Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom.”
I get there from the present conditions to say, isolating Texas does not give you anything but potentially harmed comrades.
“Okay, I agree, but this is not different from early anti-apartheid organization and there’s no reason stated for why this is a no-go for BDS.”
More reactionaries organized to do violence against leftists and minorities is very different from early anti-apartheid organization for a number of reasons. I shouldn’t have to explain why, since anti-apartheid organizing wasn’t explicitly anti-capitalist.
"Does a potential BDS Texas movement not have calls for material gains, policies to alleviate oppression, try to build socialism? "
Sure it does, but the issues are not local to Texas, these are issues present everywhere in America, and so you cannot segment off a portion of the country off arbitrarily. I really need you to explain how you think that BDS for this arbitrary region of the United States is going to accomplish these things, from within a region of 47 other states which are all, also, guilty of the same things? You are the one imagining an America which has the potential to sanction off 1 segment of its country. Either it must sanction the entire United States, or, it must come from within the United States, and I need whatever you’re on to think that there won’t be states which ally themselves with Texas to help out their reactionary buddies.
