***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Bruh, his coal cat looks just like my wife’s.

B999765E-96B4-4636-96EA-CC501F97F6E2.jpeg


Also walked in on me and my boys dogs talking coal one day... wtf these dogs man. :wow:

D77BB6CA-928E-4042-89A7-AFCFE41E1B9C.png
 
Methodical Management Methodical Management

My concern is bosses/capitalists using their wealth, political influence, media control, autocratic control over the work place to use the language and symbols of racial, gender, orientation based struggles in order to divide workers and manufacture consent among white liberals. Most oppressed people won't buy it, some will, there are black Republicans and gay Republicans after all, but most will not buy it. My worry is that more marginalized parts of a broad coalition could get confused, discouraged and cleaved from each other not to mention people, who are ambivalent about labor struggles being nudged into siding with management.

The antidote is to periodically say that we have a lot in common especially our shared exploitation as workers. The ability to say that and not be accused of trying to crush, dismiss or silence people's identity would be very, very helpful. Of course, we also need gay people working at different workplaces to work in concert to champion their interests as gay people and the same for women and people of color and disabled people. Moreover, people who are more privileged better lend their support. I'd also say that massive challenges to capital don't have to come first. Indeed, identitarian based organizing and direct action creates better activists for other struggles.

I should not have to keep saying it but it's just a fact that we need the ability to form broad based coalitions to demand that capital make concessions. In order to have the resources to specifically address problems of all sorts of marginalized groups we need to expropriate the ill gotten gains of capital. We have to form up and we can have solidarity with marginalized identities while acknowledging our commonality as workers. The two are not in opposition to each other, The two need each other.
 


It's really a two-part problem. First, many of these religions are founded by a single person who retains a position of exclusive power within the organization, and power tends to corrupt even the most ethical among us. In the case of The People's Temple, there is evidence that its leader, Reverend James Warren Jones, was abusing prescription drugs and becoming increasingly paranoid through the 1970s. Next, because these groups operate outside the mainstream, there is usually no one checking up on their operating procedures, so a corrupt or mentally unstable leader is free to exploit his followers to his heart's content. In addition to this authoritarian leadership structure, some primary characteristics of a destructive cult include:


  • Charismatic leadership
  • Deception in recruiting
  • Use of thought-reform methods
  • Isolation (physical and/or psychological)
  • Demand for absolute, unquestioning devotion and loyalty
  • Sharp, unsurpassable distinction between "us" (good, saved) and "them" (bad, going to Hell)
  • "Inside language" that only members fully understand
  • Strict control over members' daily routines
For the remainder of this article, when we refer to techniques employed by "cults," we're talking about destructive cults, not the small religious groups that keep to themselves and don't hurt anybody. In the following sections, we'll examine destructive cults more closely and find out how they function. Let's start with the leadership structure.

IT TAKES ALL KINDS
Not all destructive cults are religious in nature. They can be driven by political or financial goals as well. In the end, it's all about subjugating members' individuality to achieve the desires of the leader(s), whether that means reinforcing a self-proclaimed messianic status, participating in destructive activities in the name of political revolution or simply filling the leader's pockets with their hard-earned money. There are radical political groups, commercial pyramid schemes and self-help seminars that employ similar recruiting and indoctrinating techniques as destructive religious cults, targeting people with certain vulnerabilities and then playing on those vulnerabilities to keep them "in the fold." The end result is a "convert" who will blow himself up in the name of destroying capitalism, try to get all of his loved ones to buy into the same business deal that he is losing his life savings on, or keep signing up for an unending series of lectures, seminars and retreats that promise psychological and spiritual healing but really only drain his bank account.

 
FWIW the left losses so much that we end up having arguments despite agreeing almost 100%. When we win or are even just able to get out there and confront a common enemy like a racist police department, those differences melt away. When the tear gas starts flying or even just when the march starts, it doesn't matter so much if someone is progressive or socialist or Marxist-Leninist or Maoist or if some was radicalized by Du Bois or Marx or what their favorite podcast is, we all know that there are injustices every where and when one of them can be beaten back, we're in stronger position at beating back other injustices.

One problem the left doesn't have is finding injustices to fight. They find us.
 
I’ve already explained as such with examples of health care, education system, discriminatory hiring practices in previous posts. You can literally pull for those posts to see. Your argument is that it will be much better. My argument is that it’s truly only a solve for poor whites if you aren’t fighting as hard to dismantle white supremacy these institutions as you are classism.
What I'm saying is "dismantling white supremacy" and other similar phrases are general goals like "dismantling capitalism," not specific political programs like a federal jobs guarantee or Medicare for All.

I share the sentiment and the goal one hundred percent. You're saying every policy proposal falls short of that goal—which I'm not even disagreeing with!

What I'm asking is how do you conceive of translating that goal into a specific political program that you would see as adequately addressing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom