Buggane of St Trinians

In order words, the Monroe Doctrine has taking a Manifest Destiny in Trump's id for conquest.

If the act of the war is of spectacle, then the oil's importance is of the spectacle than of the economical; claiming it is part of the show.

Moreover, it is secondary to the threat protection enable against both other countries and to the peoples within Venezuela who may distray from the visions of the Neoconservativism of Trump.

I pray the vote flips as the mail-ins are counted. I also hope every single one of you is absolutely shitting yourselves right now as the reality of what you’ve done sinks in. I hope you are fucking TERRIFIED. I hope you’re getting a good deep taste of what you’ve put Jews through for the last thirteen months. I hope even if we do get a miracle, the fear NEVER LEAVES YOU. I hope you realize how close to the brink we were. I hope you realize what disgusting, selfish, puerile children you were, and are absolutely revolted by yourselves.

Congratu-fucking-lations, you just got the greater evil elected!

If we're lucky, he'll just roll back legal protections, deregulate industries, and shift the overton window to the point these 4 years push us back several decades.

If we're unlucky, the US might very well become a far right presidential dictatorship.

You all keep talking about the lesser evil, but it is a lesser evil only because you weren't its intended victims. Meanwhile, the intended victim was dying yesterday, and it is dying today, and it will keep on dying tomorrow. And you ask them to support their own murderer for your security.

Come back when you learn to take responsibility and that “I support the self-determination of the Palestinian people, a ceasefire, and a two-state solution” and “I want to turn Gaza into a parking lot” are not the same thing.

In actually, the votes for third parties were much more smaller than the gains Trump had. In other words, the idea that Third Party or protest votes caused Harris to lose ignores the fact that she essentially ran a rubbish campaign or the deep seated reactionary elements that spread out through American society.

And for the record Gaza was facing genocidal destruction under Biden's watch. The idea its survival would have came is a cruel falsehood in light of the strong 9/11 era racist elements in the DNC. The USA, reguardless of who is in charge, has been responsible for helping a apartied state conduct a campaign of genocide.

that's not how anything works. if you live in the US, if you pay taxes, if you are using a cell phone, if you drive or ride in a car, if you own anything with a rechargeable battery, you're technically complicit in war crimes.

not voting for Harris is, in effect, a vote for Trump. (mathematically you could argue it's half a vote for Trump but that's still voting for Trump)

I heard a National Parks employee a couple weeks ago say he wasn't sure the National Park Service could survive another Trump presidency. Federal agencies across the government are racing to get money out the door before January - EPA climate justice grants. USDA grants to Black and Indigenous farmers. immigration courts are racing to process as many citizenship applications as possible before January.

They're doing this because they know what will happen if Trump is elected again. We all know. Because we've done this before. There's no "he's just saying stuff he won't actually DO anything" this time around.

vote for Harris if you want, but you are 100% complicit and approving of an ongoing genocide if you do so. you don't get to pick and choose the good from the bad and then act as the sole reasonable judge of what is moral. you are as responsible for the death and destruction as the candidate that you have sworn your vote to. you could only be more complicit if you set the fires that burned them alive yourself. you should feel shame at your failure to, at minimum, take ownership of your role in continuing the bloodshed.

Things that he’s gotten done and what impact they have made or will make. I don’t like all of them, but there are a lot I am really, really glad he’s managed (and impressed).

Now, imagine what could happen if we had a unified House, Senate, and White House. If you think of all the bills that have stalled because the Speakers wouldn’t even bring them to a vote…

I know everyone fucking hates hearing this, but voting 3rd party in national general elections in the US is a fucking waste. In our current two-party FPTP system, third parties functionally do not exist, and they know it. Most of them are functionally grifts as a result.

I know we've been saying that "this next election is crucial to the survival of American democracy" for the last couple of elections, so it's probably starting to sound like old hat or like people are exaggerating, but y'all...

There is literally nothing more important to your cause - whatever that cause is - than keeping Trump out of the fucking White House.

You don't have to like Biden. You don't have to think he's the right choice for the Democrats to run. I surely think they should have made another choice, to put it mildly, but they fucking didn't and here we are. We are at the point where it's either Biden or Trump, and every goddamned third-party vote is "well, maybe a little fascism would be okay."

Putin and fucking Bibi would be thrilled to deal with Trump. The people who want to ram all of us into tiny little narrow boxes where we have children we can't afford because we don't have a choice and then spend all of our lives hungry, scrambling, desperate and easy to control? The people who have been literally making those plans in public since Reagan, and planning explicitly how to get poor white people to have more babies, specifically so those poor white people will keep them in power? They love Trump.

Is this what I wanted? No. We didn't even have primaries in my state before the race was essentially decided. But you know what?

This is where we are, and no amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that. At this point, if you're not focused on keeping That Dude out of power, you're helping hand it to him.

It sucks, but it's the truth.

Protest votes are for primaries. Third parties should not be taken seriously in Presidential elections especially - and any third party that isn't focusing locally first is basically just a grift to get people on TV and into the national news so they can [raise money/get money as a political consultant/sell books/whatever Marianne Williamson's current grift is now that she isn't telling AIDS patients they will only get sick if they don't pray hard enough and maybe they can stop taking their meds].

Like, the phrase "my way" means something very different when it's a modest change that's considered politically possible, versus something that is a life and death issue for you, WRT such things as police brutality, healthcare, cost of living, ectcetera; and yet it is considered politically impossible to address them in a way that would meaningfully aid you.

And like, while it's true that nonvoting can be an expression of being so privileged politics doesn't impact you, it also true that it can be an expression of the fact that you need help that neither party is willing to provide.

And like, I have a lot of criticism for the "don't vote" crowd, most notably that they've done a good job of showing why both parties suck but a terrible job at convincing anyone they can do anything about it outside of the electoral system. The best they can do is localism, but localism's not going to do shit for my friend in Flomaton or my other friends stuck with abusive families in Rural Republicah Hell. or people who need healthcare and disability care.

But, I feel that the people criticizing people for this on the flipside also forget how absolutely tone-deaf they sound.

Voting for Democrats, no matter what, is saying "what you did does not actually matter" and thus actually hinders your own agency. Such "hold nose" voting is bad in the UK, it is bad in the USA too.

As a Brit, however, I am particular alarmed by the fact the Democrats have adopted a policy straight out of the Conservative and Unionist Party here in the UK; that is shipping migrants, striving for safe haven, away to another nation:

The plan to ship folk is quite alarming and, along with other bordering policies under Biden, suggest that the Democrats do not actually oppose the Republican bordering policies. The cages still got kids in them and money is being sent to the border cops.

"Oh but Trump" the point is to be different to the Republicans, not try to somehow mirror them when it comes to xenophobic racist activities.

As for the 'Left' what we speak of? The SocDems who spoke of combating the caging only to take part in the regime of it? The despots wannabes who believe things might be better if we put the word "peoples''" thus to make "the peoples' cages"? Because the notion of organising as "localism" implies that resistances, such as being conduct against Cop City, demonstrate a string of isolationism instead of alliance buildings. It also enables a form of doomism, which fits considering the promotion of a certain Maoist text.

Asylum seekers will denied opportunity of sanctum. I speak as one whose country has gone the anti-asylum seeker route, taken up by both main partiies; it is a ill path.

Don’t know if it’s just ignorant people or whether it’s coordinated, but voting is important. It is your power.

The truth is keyboard communists don’t give a fuck about their communities, they throw out #marxism and consider that activism while offering normal working class people nothing but disdain and condescension.

And as for the “keyboard communist” label, I do a whole lot more work for the revolutionary movement than a streamer and a shite political commentator whos idea of helping the working class is telling them to vote for parties who will only push them further into poverty.

A whole lot of theoretical word vomit and not a single action. Standard keyboard commie.

But to the question of what I have done to build the movement in scotland I direct you to when I mentioned the fact that we have been recruiting in many of the cities around the country and have already expanded significantly in perth.

That said: electoralism takes away resources from direct action and for what purpose? If I focus on Marxist electoral attempts in this 1st paragraph, just for strategy of pondering, there opens some inquiry. Amusingly, the SWP and such would fit the example of the problems on not just material resources taken away like potential finance that could not gone into developing of a 3rd space but also how it effects persons, especially as their energy is taken away and they become jaded from the scummary of the party.

Of course, this comes more problem if we focus the concept of voting towards the big 2, especially in the UK with how Labour has embraced as a different shade of Thatcher's legacy, especially now it is undertaking practices of transphobia, looking on disabled people and proceeding to burn agains the poor. Or we migrate our eyes to the USA, where Biden or Trump the Heritage Foundation would likely be able to win as the Demoncrats let allow of the attacks on abortion while uniting to attack migration and support the genocide in Palestine?

Yes, this line of argument could be dismissed if we take to, say, France instead of the matters of the UK and USA, which seem in a process of self rot and consumption that enables social democrats to realise a cynicalism (that or endorse their status at a bottom of power attention) but the factor of resources remains.

Bad Mouse puts though in more detail:

Note that I am more aiming electoralism itself; as for vote itself that veries and the one fig leaf can be set on the power of third parties in shaping elections, as discussed in the 1st video but this attempts on attention. The Greens, even LibDems, get less focus by media than what ever project Farage has; why? Remember that are many elements to the structure and the media tend to prefer xenophobia (and a upper class git like Farage) to anything even mild in critique of the economic status quo, which has somehow come to include the LibDems because of the effect on the Razor that shifts Labour towards the Tories. Again, still, comes again to the question of resources that could have done to developing alnterative power structures and conducting direct actions, including the industrial action that has been developing the UK in recent years.

The Labour Party are going to introduce a new Section 28.

Strreight up using the language of transphobic hate groups, just as were the case with the "Gay Agenda" used by homophobic organisations.

The factor that the supposed opposition to the Conservatives is adopting this does not bold well for the wellbeing of queer communities in the UK, particularly if the anti-LGBT+ organisations use the opportunity to influence on other areas too.

Will LGBT+ Labour make opposition against this move?

Things that he’s gotten done and what impact they have made or will make. I don’t like all of them, but there are a lot I am really, really glad he’s managed (and impressed).

Now, imagine what could happen if we had a unified House, Senate, and White House. If you think of all the bills that have stalled because the Speakers wouldn’t even bring them to a vote…

I know everyone fucking hates hearing this, but voting 3rd party in national general elections in the US is a fucking waste. In our current two-party FPTP system, third parties functionally do not exist, and they know it. Most of them are functionally grifts as a result.

I know we've been saying that "this next election is crucial to the survival of American democracy" for the last couple of elections, so it's probably starting to sound like old hat or like people are exaggerating, but y'all...

There is literally nothing more important to your cause - whatever that cause is - than keeping Trump out of the fucking White House.

You don't have to like Biden. You don't have to think he's the right choice for the Democrats to run. I surely think they should have made another choice, to put it mildly, but they fucking didn't and here we are. We are at the point where it's either Biden or Trump, and every goddamned third-party vote is "well, maybe a little fascism would be okay."

Putin and fucking Bibi would be thrilled to deal with Trump. The people who want to ram all of us into tiny little narrow boxes where we have children we can't afford because we don't have a choice and then spend all of our lives hungry, scrambling, desperate and easy to control? The people who have been literally making those plans in public since Reagan, and planning explicitly how to get poor white people to have more babies, specifically so those poor white people will keep them in power? They love Trump.

Is this what I wanted? No. We didn't even have primaries in my state before the race was essentially decided. But you know what?

This is where we are, and no amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that. At this point, if you're not focused on keeping That Dude out of power, you're helping hand it to him.

It sucks, but it's the truth.

Protest votes are for primaries. Third parties should not be taken seriously in Presidential elections especially - and any third party that isn't focusing locally first is basically just a grift to get people on TV and into the national news so they can [raise money/get money as a political consultant/sell books/whatever Marianne Williamson's current grift is now that she isn't telling AIDS patients they will only get sick if they don't pray hard enough and maybe they can stop taking their meds].

Like, the phrase "my way" means something very different when it's a modest change that's considered politically possible, versus something that is a life and death issue for you, WRT such things as police brutality, healthcare, cost of living, ectcetera; and yet it is considered politically impossible to address them in a way that would meaningfully aid you.

And like, while it's true that nonvoting can be an expression of being so privileged politics doesn't impact you, it also true that it can be an expression of the fact that you need help that neither party is willing to provide.

And like, I have a lot of criticism for the "don't vote" crowd, most notably that they've done a good job of showing why both parties suck but a terrible job at convincing anyone they can do anything about it outside of the electoral system. The best they can do is localism, but localism's not going to do shit for my friend in Flomaton or my other friends stuck with abusive families in Rural Republicah Hell. or people who need healthcare and disability care.

But, I feel that the people criticizing people for this on the flipside also forget how absolutely tone-deaf they sound.

Voting for Democrats, no matter what, is saying "what you did does not actually matter" and thus actually hinders your own agency. Such "hold nose" voting is bad in the UK, it is bad in the USA too.

As a Brit, however, I am particular alarmed by the fact the Democrats have adopted a policy straight out of the Conservative and Unionist Party here in the UK; that is shipping migrants, striving for safe haven, away to another nation:

The plan to ship folk is quite alarming and, along with other bordering policies under Biden, suggest that the Democrats do not actually oppose the Republican bordering policies. The cages still got kids in them and money is being sent to the border cops.

"Oh but Trump" the point is to be different to the Republicans, not try to somehow mirror them when it comes to xenophobic racist activities.

As for the 'Left' what we speak of? The SocDems who spoke of combating the caging only to take part in the regime of it? The despots wannabes who believe things might be better if we put the word "peoples''" thus to make "the peoples' cages"? Because the notion of organising as "localism" implies that resistances, such as being conduct against Cop City, demonstrate a string of isolationism instead of alliance buildings. It also enables a form of doomism, which fits considering the promotion of a certain Maoist text.

An aggressively cynical view would be that the Labour Party previously existed to manage the working class as a voting bloc. I don’t think it’s 100% the case, but I can see why folk would think it.

People will point Tony Blair being elected as the paradigm shift. It was the point when Labour went full on neoliberal where instead of opposing the conservative economic worldview, they accepted that thats how the world works.

So their whole argument shifted to ‘We can just manage the economy better than the conservatives (but in accordance to how they think things should work)’

LibCom have excellent articles on the matter, including the 2009 piece "Labouring in vain: a critical history of the Labour Party." I also this 2019 December reflection piece on Labour's defeat in the election that year by the Angry Workers of the World.

Of course, Labour now are of particular dreadfulness, particular for disabled people who will face their rights, but we must not pretend the more SocDem aspect would be counter, has demonstrated by the abelist xenophobia of a Aaron Bastani when it came to myth he contribute to; who needs Neoliberals when you got proclaimed Socialists like this? No hope from those who embrace nation state, whether they embraced neoliberalism or proclaim to another aspect of Capitalism or its opposition like the autocratic evils of Leninism.

Yeah, looks like Farage has taken over the leadership of Reform UK. Although reckon he'll dilute the conservative vote more than anything else.

Although I do fear that Labour will win the majority and there will be no real change.

But hopefully plenty of the other (none Tories) parties will have heavy gains.

Labour will win, there will be no change.

Progressive parties will lose out because people are so desperate for change from the Tories they’ll hand the election to Labour.

Trade unions, migrant rights groups, queer rights groups, enviromental groups, ant-genocide actions, disability rights groups etch... all these need to be set in networking of solidarity and alliances, plus the need to ensure a dual power dynamic in establishing needed mutual aid groups and other counter state methodologies.

While a hunged parliament would be benefitial check, the importance is establishing of pressure against whatever regime is in i place and to enshrine a counter hegemony against the heirs of Thatcher.

Like, how they never think they're the baddies, how they get mired in cliquish bullshit while being unable to make changes for the party's long-term survival, and how they're very good at engulfing and devouring activist movements into their bullshit.

Like, we ask ourselves how so many of them could've ended up as stodgy assholes despite coming from an activist background, and I think this kinda throws the reasons for that into stark relief.

"The Tyranny of Structurelessness" is terrible tankie bullshit written by a woman who clearly accepts authoritarian premises as a given and thinks that the way to solve informal hierarchies is to introduce formal ones.

Like, Jo Freeman was a Maoist who thought that the issue with feminist movements of the time was that they didn't have enough leaders who get to issue commands and be obeyed, and didn't have enough bureaucracy to dictate what people can do and how. As if authority wasn't itself the entire problem with patriarchy to begin with. I highly suggest that you read Cathy Levine's rebuttal "The Tyranny of Tyranny." I have some minor issues with its approach to feminist politics but it is a pretty scathing response to Jo Freeman's arguments.

C) They will justify it using European colonial clichés. 

There is a “saviour” logic which was used by European empire to justify their colonialism, best symbolised through the terminology “White Man’s Burden.”  Lhadon Tethong from Students for a Free Tibet had himself compared the ‘justification’ for the occupation of Tibet to European colonial rhetoric, highlighting its role in robbing a occupied peoples of agency while dehumanising them in the name of ‘civilizing’ them. 

D) They will portray all Tibetan dissidents as theocrat feudalist agents of the CIA.

Tibetan dissidents are placed as ‘backward in time’ in order to imply that a independent Tibet would be the theocracy of old. There are some... hopefully obvious considerations of why this is rhetoric but it does mirror how European colonial powers would try to justify their imperial past by insisting there was no other way for ‘development’ or the spread of ‘democracy’ as it were. The evil that can be done in the name of ‘civilizing’ can also be seen with the current suppression of the Uyghurs, as it was with the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Australians by the settler colonial regime in Australia. 

E)  Essentially taking everything the PRC says as truth on the surface, in a way they would not do to the USA’s rhetoric. 

No they're right actually and they should say it.

The lefts descent into obsession with identity politics means all these boys get from these spaces is essentially being told they're inherently monstrous or will grow up to be so.

12 year old boys are not evil. They're children. And they're susceptible to manipulation from these fucks on the right who have sadly correctly identified that large swathes of the left will ignore and shun them. People turn to extremist factions when they feel ignored and dehumanised.

A 12 year old boy online isn't going to be able to read the nuances in your uber ironic but not really actually ironic "all white men are inherently trash" hot takes. They're going to take that at face value because they're 12 and that's what 12 year olds do. And they're going to feel angry, rejected and judged by your words. And then fucks like Andrew Tate get to swoop in and tell them that you're wrong and start the ball rolling on that indoctrination.

If you're an adult leftist and you honestly think teenage boys possess the wherewithal to purposefully follow dangerous Misogynists like Andrew Tate in order to "preserve their own privilege long term" then I'm sorry to say you're too far gone and I'd suggest logging off and actually trying to have a conversation with a kid who is vulnerable to the grooming of these uber misogynists and treat them as a human being instead of a reflection of an identity you've boxed them into.

It explains why the pipeline has been so effective on lonely, unsupervised, “benignly neglected” kids and teenagers who need friends and mentorship from adults they feel they can trust but aren’t otherwise getting it offline. This is also part of the strategy that ended up sucking in a lot of seemingly rational adults into bizarre horseshit like QAnon (although that can also be explained by the addictive nature of its “gamified” prophecies and conspiracy theories hooking audiences who aren’t already familiar with ARGs).

For starters the whole notion on identity is a reminder that people should read Fractured: Race, Class, Gender and the Hatred of Identity Politics by Michael Richmond and  Alex Charnley as, particularly with discourses recently involving a figure to get MRA talking points into spheres, we need address the complexities of oppression without drawing on nativist ideals by SocDems in under to justify their support for borders, for instance. If you want to make argument it is important that the elements are understand, less we take a pipeline.

Second: who is this aimed at? There is lot of so and so say here.

Third: one should serious avoid the error of debate bros like Vaush, particularly as their methodologies do not counter fascism but rather platform it. While there are notions of take, one should check on the messenger as it were. Forgive me but this kind of like taking advice from the Daily Mail, as it were, which recently a figure who reblogged this OP message had critique people for using as a source on what someone said, so that is that.

Fourth: might I ask about 12 year old children who are not white or male or ‘able’? Because it is also necessary to consider on the protection of children from abusers, including bullying by their own age. Bullies tend to come from more privilege areas and I am speaking in class terms here. It is necessary that any talk is countered for the victims. Backgrounding will be important to help counter in case but we have to prepared for situation in which do not come into boxes. 

Now there is nobility in the reblog by golvio, in contrast with the Vaushites,  but we need to careful, consider as the messenger as a tactic of taking into “and we need to platform this fascist to debate them...” which will not do well to ‘deradicalize’ those 12 year olds.

It is also however important to realise power dynamics, such as how adults claim power over children and the ways which sociological elements may investigated. This will be important to research the full extent in order to set out, rather than risk the temptation I sense Vaush is aiming for or go into those who want to make rants about ‘diversity boxes’ which will translate into practices not to the benefit the 12 year olds but will help undermine who seek to counter the recruitments efforts, for the SocDems have shown to be worse than liberals in certain areas when it comes to countering the far right. 

All in all: y’all need to read Fractured and then seek what you are talking to, cause it ain’t Tumblr or Twitter folk that going to stop radicalisation by shaming those who may faced the ill end of those radicalisation efforts. Nuance is also something y’all need too. I have seen folk try to blame feminism, despite the factor it is not feminism that setting the 12 year olds to the far right. Considering this take place both at the time of a David anti-feminist rant and at Tate being taken down for his trafficking I need to ponder whether we also need to take consideration, while also avoiding the error of overestimating one’s opposition. It is good to take tactics but keep in mind we need to also understand why folk not in good situation. 

I don’t have time to do a fully response to your entire reply, but there are a few key points I want to respond to here. First, I don’t think Jason Lee Byas is necessarily against the use of violence in self-defense against fascism. I think what he’s saying is that, but equivocating violent action with non-violent action through the use of vague language like “confronting fascists,” it makes it a lot harder to judge on a case-by-case basis on whether violence is justified or tactically wise in any given scenario. Even putting aside the ethical considerations, there’s a clear difference in the threat posed by different fash groups. Sure, most of them are cowardly and will easily fold under pressure, but every now and then you’ll come across one that’s a fully-armed militia composed of mostly ex-cops and ex-military men that are scarily competent with armed weaponry. Escalating violence against a group that has you dramatically outgunned isn’t just ethically wrong, it’s outright foolish. There are some on the left (not very many, but some) who seem to want another American Civil War and I cannot tell you how much of a colossally Bad Idea that is. Second, I don’t think he’s necessarily saying fascism is a materialist ideology in the way Marxism is. Fascism isn’t even really a coherent ideology, when you strike at its core it’s almost entirely a post-hoc justification for a single group identity to acquire power. What matters is that fascists, like most Marxists, consider words and ideas to be secondary to other forces. (Although, I believe it is worth noting that Marx himself didn’t consider ideas to be irrelevant in the way that most Marxists do; I personally hold that there is a distinction between Marx’s personal beliefs and Marxism as a political ideology.)

Anyhow: for record post above is reply to this so that would be viwers may observe my argument and the document, Combat Illiberalism by  Jason Lee Byas, we are on about.

I will focus my reply on the three areas of your focus.

Focus 1: Countering Fascism

I understand the notion in Combat Illiberalism on tactics as it were.

As for the addional question of countering fascism: I will begin with a link to a article from  2017 on why Noam Chomsky was incorrect about Antifa just to illuminate on the nature of tactics and power. As for ensuring the Left is prepared in case: that is what the likes of why it is consideration to have the SRA in the USA and why it might be considerable to prepare, less one forgo to mention the fascists in the police and army.

As for a Second Civil War in the USA... a particular leap on consideration as it were. Of course as a Brit I am more familiar with their bombing of other lands... and of the part of the UK took in that, the arms dealers and brokers of conflict that decaying colonial relic be.

Focus 2: Equation in the Text

My take was from the following from point 5 from the text:

Marxists take ideas to be largely impotent, with history moved instead by “material” economic relations. Fascists also laugh at claims that ideas rule the world, convinced that everything boils down to brute impositions of will through violence. It is liberals who afford ideas a central place in explaining history’s path.

Perhaps it is a matter of communications but the tone is of comparison, set with a contrast.

As for Marxist materlaism and on ideas: how familiar are you with Antonio Gramsci and his notions on cultural hegemony? In the 1930s, in his Prison Notebooks, he spoke of war of movement (physical war) and war of position (ideas; education being one of the example areas of focus) and argued that the USSR failed in the latter. Just a example...

Focus 3: Marxism and Anti-Authoriterianism

Impossible for anti-authoriterian Marxism? Admittingly this may be seen due to a matter of the mess that was the First International clash. Karl Marx himself was no static figure and did move from state power position to more direct democratic at points. The question on the market, without resulting to the weakness of understating the role of the state to oppression (the error of Stalinism) or the systemic structures of corporate marketing in upholding oppression is a matter of breaking down the cultural hegemony of Capitalism.  The question of worker control is the bastion of socialism, a matter not to be fully realised by the SocDems who mistake that for regulations being the end goal. The anti-market ‘dogma’ ought be the Marxist objective (I say ought as we both know how CCP has gone on that route). Of course we will need to step back to deconstruct how we set the question of Capitalism.

That and I dread the “Marxists cannot be anti-authoriterian” can bread into the attempts by the Right to portray socialism and democracy (I speak of that word in the more direct terms) as mutual exclusive. We need to deconstruct the barriers of hegemony, less we risk the error of “There is No Altenrative” that sprang from the mouths of a most infamous prime minister of a most god forsaken country.

(for the record I am not in the mood of speaking of Britain in positive terms)

Conclusion

I am taking the advocate position here. In the end we have to ask on how Capitalism may make us proclaim it and market as itself in a godly force of their Invisible Hand. At the main case however is to think on the hegeomonies of idealogy and to create counter hegemony.

Perhaps this talk on ideas is old conception of the Ancient Greek philosophies of Plato vs Aristole approaches. Anyrate the key to anarchism (and that matter socialism) is reliant on the ascention of the populace, the matter which the SocDems forgot in the name of their borders and which the the AuthComs forsake for the Party. Our purpose, as liberterian socialists, is perhaps the realisation of democracy, people power, at the notion that the world has let to see.

I end this with a quote to highlight that I do see the need for ideas to help enshrine revolution (a matter I want those reading our discussion to remember) but also to go beyond the inescapable and on my desire of achieving a just epoch. To quote the author Ursula K. Le Guin:  

Y'all should be familiar that I am of great cynicism towards the idea that the authoriterianism of the vanguard is that which will spring the delivering of liberation. However I do wish to give critiques of the points to help me on my meditations as it were.

See below for all points

1: call outs are a question of the tool as it were.

If I may use a case example Brace Belden deserved callout for the spreading of antisemetic conspriacy theories.

I understand the critique and to be fair I feel my post would go into a essay on itself if I were to focus on this specific point, so I will keep it short and state that we will need to think on it or even give the reins to one much more familiar on the topic.

2: associations it might be but I must stress that at this current time of the Bidenist ‘reaching across the isle’ between the oppressed and their oppressors I do give a pin of concern as it were. Essentially it would be vary easy for point 2 to be hyjacked by those of the United States Democratic Party who would see no problem in friendship in those that would (at the ‘least’) support the suppression of black folks, queer fols, disabled folks, non-Christain folks (which would include the ‘wrong’ Christains as it were), non-tradionalist women and others deem ‘lesser.’ We need to reflect, less we open the path to be adopted by the status quo.

3: some point of contexting is needed in the usage of focus, for those who are anti-immigrant tend to guard the frameworks for the pro-war; see Donald Trump’s proclaim to keep the US out of wars to focus on his anti-immigrant policy while proceeding to carry out more drone strikes in the year of his office than Obama did in his full presidency.The border and the M.I.C. are quite connective as paths of state power.

4: to be honest I am unsure what is the focus on point 4 is, due to the way of framing.

5: this point I find concurance with; the media organization the Greyzone can demonstrate the logical outcome with the likes of Ben Norton focusing on defending regimes. There is also the horrific case of the Shining Path of Peru.

6:  there is a particular concern of those who take positions as one would take “enemy of my enemy is my friend” way as it were, when in truth the enemy of my enemy may not be a friend. That said using the FEE might be a bit... questionable and full for the point trying to be made in point 6. 

7: on the note of treating the Revolution as a game can lead to Shining Path zeal over liberation but also towards strategy of folly as the material conditions are forsaken in the name of the party... I am tempted to say theology here, so I will leave that temptation as my comment.

That said I do take alarm however on that section’s equating Marxism with fascism. Please keep in mind of Marxist critiques of Stalinists (Marxist-Leninists), particular the critiques by Rosa Luxemburg and Antonio Gramsci of the Bolsheviks. Also equating Marxism and fascism over materialism is quite... counter-productive, consideration how anti-material fascist framing is.

There also this particular foundation of liberalism specialism as it were that ignore its usage of ‘things as they are’ as we witness with the rise of neoliberalism.

We also dread the prospect that the point can be used for the rheotric of violence against oppression as bad as the oppression, which would be greatly concerning.

8: indeed it is important not to be complacent.

Although... as with the FEE and Karl Hess here is... point 2 has particular...

9: oh boy equivocal language.

Credit on the example of borders but... on the second example is the author against self-defence against fascism?

This again ends up on a self-proclaiment of liberalism,

10: although it is of rational consideration to avoid the sub-lime the piece ends up unfortunatly ends up on the rheotric of the “marketplace of ideas” on the presuming that good ideas would outshine bad ones, ignoring the material challanges we must face to overcome. It takes more than reason: it takes strategy and proactive conduction.

For the conclusion there is of course consideration of positive towards equative power but I ponder what objective is set in the author taking of liberalism. The alarming placement of Marxism as property of the Marxist-Leninists and a equating of Marxism and fascism in earlier point is a bit of a concerning towards this, as well as the rejecting of material review. I am of philosophical and do take certain theoretical notions but it is also important to have consideration of material: not the vulgar fetishism that certain figures do as it were but instead the power of understanding the condition. Critical theories are devised to seek to understand the order we face.

That said there are important considerations. The amount of tankish positionings that aligned towards what be described as a nationalism for their favourite power, that goes towards the parodoxical when it comes to the billionaires of the PRC as a example,does illuminate how countering capitalism are lost in the name of the brand. The problems with the likes of Ben Norton can be defined as forsaking the desire of liberation with that of turning geopolitics into a sports contest, much akin to the nationalisms embodied by the Western status quo forces as it were.

That said there is a element I need to address on Liberals.

I think this might be a case of communication and how Liberalism is taken in Europe comapred & contrast to the United States but what is comparative can be found from the current refual of pro-Biden liberals to heed his critics from the Left to the privatisation of water that came in the 1980s to European countries to our continued to peril comes a case of how we also address the elephant that is our condition. Keep in mind the PRC has liberalised its markets as it were and thus the struggle in China is to be of the market dominions as found in the USA, UK, Chile, Syria etch.

It is imperative that socialists, including we anarchists, maintain consideration as we identify the structures that enshrine the hegemony we face.

(As for anarnchism and liberalism: anarchism itself is a subject of evolution, as socialism itself evolved from the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. To cling to liberalism of origin is akin to 1917 role play).