-7DeadlyFetishes
Lenin says “performative” votes are a necessary part of useful communist electoralism. You wouldn’t want to disappoint this face, would you? :back-to-me:
I feel like your pulling my leg here but I can neither confirm nor deny your claim.
-7DeadlyFetishes
Legit Lenin said to use guaranteed-to-fail-in-bourgeois-democratic-chambers communist positions to demonstrate what is possible only through revolution and point fingers at those standing in our way, albeit as part of stating that you first need a mass of class conscious workers - such as those disappointed by anticapitalist reformism (itself promising and failing to deliver such things by necessity).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch09.htm
But most importantly look at these widdle cheeks. :lenin-laugh:
Is there a good Lenin compilation? I read the one thing he has about the State (I have brain damage from sleep deprivation so I don’t even remember if it was State and Rev) but I’m always amazed at how clever and insightful the snippets I see are
Yeah Rosa said something similar, essentially use elections to lose while standing on a soapbox and agitating. The moment you concern yourself with if you win or get a loss or gain, you’ve failed https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1898/09/30.htm
And only under these conditions do we fight in the sole permissible way for what is at any time ‘possible’. Now if one says that we should offer an exchange – our consent to militaristic and tariff legislation in return for political concessions or social reforms – then one is sacrificing the basic principles of the class struggle for momentary advantage, and one’s actions are based on opportunism. Opportunism, incidentally, is a political game which can be lost in two ways: not only basic principles but also practical success may be forfeited. The assumption that one can achieve the greatest number of successes by making concessions rests on a complete error. Here, as in all great matters, the most cunning persons are not the most intelligent. Bismarck once told a bourgeois opposition party: ‘You will deprive yourselves of any practical influences if you always and as a matter of course say no.’ The old boy was then, as so often, more intelligent than is Pappenheimer.[A] Indeed, a bourgeois party, that is, a party which says yes to the existing order as a whole, but which will say no to the day-to-day consequences of this order, is a hybrid, an artificial creation, which is neither fish nor flash nor fowl. We who oppose the entire present order see things quite differently. In our no, in our intransigent attitude, lies our whole strength. It is this attitude that earns us the fear and respect of the enemy and the trust and support of the people. Precisely because we do not yield one inch from our position, we force the government and the bourgeois parties to concede to us the few immediate successes that can be gained. But if we begin to chase after what is ‘possible’ according to the principles of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to stay the deer but has also lost his gun in the process.
We do not shudder at the foreign terms, opportunism and the art of the possible, as Heine believes; we shudder only when they are ‘Germanized’ into our party practice. Let them remain foreign words for us. And, if occasion arises, let our comrades shun the role of interpreter.
The Communist stance on shit like this is pretty fucking clear.
huh you know maybe signalling centrism on the “cannibalize the palestinians” act while trying to coopt leftism is a bad thing
As opposed to to signalling opposition of the “cannibalize the palestinians” act that still would have passed. It’s definetly an AOC cringe compliation worthy moment but that’s all it is, idk why people are acting like it’s the end of the world becuase of it.
-7DeadlyFetishes
Compare the outcry about AOC’s “present” versus Jamaal Bowman’s “yes” and you’ll start finding answers.
The answer is Bowman comparatively never gets any press, so no one cares about him. Electoral politics are a media circus. :shrug-outta-hecks:
Are the reasons AOC gets more press at least in part sexist? Yeah, probably. But I feel like putting that on most of the people here isn’t really justified.
TBH I wish I heard less about the squad.
Because we have moral indignation over apartheid and all who enable it or refuse to stand by their supposed principles. No one thinks its the end of the world, we just think it was cowardly. you are acting like people being disgusted are acting like its the end of the world IS the end of the fucking world
9 senators voted against it, so its not like she’s the only one who would’ve done it.
That she broke down crying has been sitting heavy with me. Maybe it’s just that interview Felix did with the imprisoned governor, but it feels like some seriously fucked up coercion is happening. I know her personal vote doesn’t actually matter… but the DNC is so hollow and tone-obsessed, breaking out the serious threats just to preserve their “optics”… it’s plausible.
Haven’t thought of it that way, but still I wish AOC would stop having cringe moments like, every three weeks now.
-7DeadlyFetishes
The constant cringe is part of what gives me pause. She’s voted ‘present’ on shitty bills before without breaking down.
All that being said, this could just be the straw that broke the camel’s back. She’s talked about how miserable she is in DC, and anything involving Israel is extra emotionally charged in general.
Ah, I didn’t watch the video, I just know of it. Watching a viral video of someone crying felt kinda intrusive
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
