CIA agents espousing Marxism are about as trustworthy as Trotskyists who follow the same behavioral pattern. Would you trust a cop to tell the truth? Then why trust an op to turn on the American bourgeoisie?
I do not mean to be confrontational (or another more accurate synonym, I’m commenting in good faith - I’m just tired and don’t wanna come out wrong) but how can we completely overlook the ideological insanity of RATWM protest leaders as pragmatism, while abandoning ANSWER, arguably the most successful modern antiwar movement in the U.S., because some of the leaders were involved in the Amerikan state department?
I do not see where the line is here between pragmatism and dogmatism. And where does Trotskyism come into play here, exactly? It feels as if you are invoking his name to smear ANSWER, but ANSWER is not a Trotskyist formation. (I know wsws is). Copjacketing BlackAgendaReport (btw this article was written by Jacqueline Luqman, not the man you seem to be speaking of) and ANSWER feels weird, especially in defense of Ron Paul-LaRouchite shit.
Anti-war is good. Empire is 100% the primary contradiction and if this movement were to spearhead its demise then that’d be grand. I just don’t think it will because the organizers are not anti-war. It’s literally Ron Paul and LaRouche lol. There were Soviet and anarchist flags flown at the HK riots, too.
Something seems off about people promoting RATMW but then shitting on ANSWER. Especially using bs saying members used to be in the military and shit. Seriously, cool with an event hosting Tulsi Gabbard who is an active member in a psy op unit but ANSWER is bad because is has ex military?
Also, if a coalition around being anti-war having veterans in it surprises you, I don’t think you have gone to a single anti-war protest. I know we hate the US military but people like average vets aren’t exactly happy when they see their friends blown to bits for some oil profits. If we don’t take advantage of that rightful anger, THAT is dogmatic and not pragmatic.
Just adding to your point, but the revolution needs disaffected people from our police and military. It was true in Lenin’s time and it’s true now. Obviously they should be treated with a lot more skepticism. However, plenty of people join these institutions as apolitical people and come out radically against them. And they leave with inside knowledge about how these institutions work. That’s valuable.
Most certainly. And the revolution needs a vanguard party, not a coalition of wealthy think-tankers, senators, fascists, and a couple of “patriotic socialists”. What does their leadership look like in organizing protests? What happens to this coalition as soon as the single-issue contradiction has been resolved? If this united front, left-love-right anti-imperialist coalition comes to be, it’s doomed for violent failure.
Speaking of Lenin, what precisely happened to the provisional government almost immediately after the monarchy was overthrown? In hindsight its dissolution allowed for the world’s first true socialist revolution, but in the meantime manifested a horrible, bloody conflict that should not have had to happen (with plenty of help from western imperialists). Because the provisional government was a coalition of fascists, social democrats and communists.
Ron Paul and his decrepit ilk are not anti-war. In fact, a major talking point of the right as of this moment is that diverting so many funds and weapons to Ukraine is weakening us for the coming war on China and we should use that money to double down on military spending.
I understand that a lot of comrades’ points are about this one issue being paramount, but the way Tucker Carlson is “anti-war” is in that he actually supports war, having once hosted a guy on his show who said we had to up the military budget so one day we can “sit on a throne of Chinese skulls.” Associating with these fools as supposed left anti-imperialists Dore and Max Blumenthal did has done nothing but seemingly drive them fucking batshit.
I think the proper move here would be to organize with better groups like ANSWER or your local party. Assuming that we have to ally ourselves with rightists is buying into the idea that their platforms are more popular than they are. We do not need to ally with fascists, they do not “speak for the people” and they are not worth convincing - they’re fucking astroturfers and their main support base comes from the petit bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, be it in votes, money, or actively platforming their ideas. Most Amerikans are against war, not just the loud fascist minority. Most Amerikans don’t vote at all, and most Amerikans are poor.
No it’s fine, I think disagreement is good. I understand that advocating what could seem like a major shift is likely to provoke discord. I view this first rally not in terms of the organizers (which is why even though I accost ANSWER, I don’t have a problem that they have lead a similar event recently), but for the purpose of a headcount for all to see as to how many workers (and pette bourgeois) represent the pro-Russia stance in America as of this moment. This is why I left out the leadership of this first event, speaking generally of those who wish to lead an anti-war movement in the future past this first event. For this, I don’t see Ron Paul and these new libertarianites as contenders, and even if they are they are not for our class as their arguments and interests align with the pette bourgeois. This is why I am focused on ANSWER, as they are both positioning themselves to lead the entire movement, and they aim to represent our class’ interests.
I did not intend to copjacket BAR whatsoever, I just believe that that particular article was unbased, I did not intend to lump my analysis of ANSWER in with him whatsoever (nor any of his associates involved in writing articles), in this you misunderstand me.
Going back to ANSWER, I believe you are misunderstanding the degree of which ANSWER’s character is ex-CIA. It was founded by ex-CIA and regularly platforms these labor aristocratic gangsters for the bourgeois class. Through the documents of Operation Mockingbird, we know the CIA has infiltrated the mainstream media to a large degree, and by viewing this media we see how these state actors lie to our faces day in and day out convincingly as if it is a matter of their lives to convince us of the narrative they are ordered to craft and then propagate. The supposedly retired CIA agents of ANSWER have done nothing to earn our trust in not only their reformation of their ideals (why? What drove this sudden change of heart? They suddenly grew a conscience when this was absent their careers?) but also in their repayment of their victims. Basically a group of CIA agents come along and try to organize our class and because they admitted to us they are/were CIA we should trust them for some reason?
You mentioned they were the most successful anti-war group in these times, to that I ask successful in which terms? Successful for who’s cause? They did organize a large number of people, yes this is true, but as I have stated elsewhere what was accomplished in terms of their supposed objective? Was the war stopped? Was it even struggled with? If large protests are the summation of their actions then they failed at their cause. But then I have to ask, was their goal to stop the war or was their goal to stop us from stopping the war? Have they learned from this failure and corrected their actions since then? I know they have been active for a while now, surely if they were behaving in good faith as true radicals, they would adjust their tactics to better achieve their desired results, to meet their goals? But all we’ve seen is protests.
This is why I compare them to Trotskyists; they infiltrate, play the role, then opportunistically lead the class astray. They talk the talk but walk us into a wall. This is also why I question their class allegiance, the validity of their redemption, and indeed if they are even retired in the first place. I do not believe the CIA deserve any less than the most critical analysis when determining if they can or cannot be trusted, and certainly we should default to rejection given their explicit existence to oppose communism dating back to the 40s. They also worked with Trotsky and his propaganda largely shaped their counterinsurgency rhetoric which has since evolved into modern US propaganda.
Whether it’s ANSWER or another bad choice leading our class in this coalition (and indeed contending to actions the overall movement should take, competing against these libertarianites) nothing of substance will occur unless a Marxist party is able to earn the lead of our class in the coalition, not much will occur. I do believe if Russia is able to influence a section of the pette bourgeois organizers they could also lead the coalition into stopping this war in Ukraine…however due to the economy the next war will be with China of which they will be of little help against as the pette bourgeoisie do not relate to China the way they do to Russia. Russia is a competitor as they are, they see China as the same as the big bourgeois in NATO, and due to this they will very likely support a war against China. The US pette bourgeois are not anti-war, they are anti this war. This is why it is imperative that we work to lead the anti-war coalition, so we can not just oppose the war against Russia but also a war against China. It is also likely that if the pette bourgeois lead the coalition, once the China shift begins, the movement will crumble as it’s leadership dissolves.
I haven’t heard of ANSWER before. History is everything. Links to the CIA is a red-line. Maybe some people believe we should forgive and forget, but I’d call them the latest generations of fools.
Well, we all have learning to do. For some of us it is in “street smarts” as opposed to “book smarts”. There is studying conflict then there is experience within conflict. And the CIA are no simple foe either, they are the best the bourgeoisie has ever come up with. You are no fool for not knowing calculus.
CIA agents espousing Marxism are about as trustworthy as Trotskyists who follow the same behavioral pattern. Would you trust a cop to tell the truth? Then why trust an op to turn on the American bourgeoisie?
I do not mean to be confrontational (or another more accurate synonym, I’m commenting in good faith - I’m just tired and don’t wanna come out wrong) but how can we completely overlook the ideological insanity of RATWM protest leaders as pragmatism, while abandoning ANSWER, arguably the most successful modern antiwar movement in the U.S., because some of the leaders were involved in the Amerikan state department?
I do not see where the line is here between pragmatism and dogmatism. And where does Trotskyism come into play here, exactly? It feels as if you are invoking his name to smear ANSWER, but ANSWER is not a Trotskyist formation. (I know wsws is). Copjacketing BlackAgendaReport (btw this article was written by Jacqueline Luqman, not the man you seem to be speaking of) and ANSWER feels weird, especially in defense of Ron Paul-LaRouchite shit.
Anti-war is good. Empire is 100% the primary contradiction and if this movement were to spearhead its demise then that’d be grand. I just don’t think it will because the organizers are not anti-war. It’s literally Ron Paul and LaRouche lol. There were Soviet and anarchist flags flown at the HK riots, too.
Something seems off about people promoting RATMW but then shitting on ANSWER. Especially using bs saying members used to be in the military and shit. Seriously, cool with an event hosting Tulsi Gabbard who is an active member in a psy op unit but ANSWER is bad because is has ex military?
Also, if a coalition around being anti-war having veterans in it surprises you, I don’t think you have gone to a single anti-war protest. I know we hate the US military but people like average vets aren’t exactly happy when they see their friends blown to bits for some oil profits. If we don’t take advantage of that rightful anger, THAT is dogmatic and not pragmatic.
Just adding to your point, but the revolution needs disaffected people from our police and military. It was true in Lenin’s time and it’s true now. Obviously they should be treated with a lot more skepticism. However, plenty of people join these institutions as apolitical people and come out radically against them. And they leave with inside knowledge about how these institutions work. That’s valuable.
Most certainly. And the revolution needs a vanguard party, not a coalition of wealthy think-tankers, senators, fascists, and a couple of “patriotic socialists”. What does their leadership look like in organizing protests? What happens to this coalition as soon as the single-issue contradiction has been resolved? If this united front, left-love-right anti-imperialist coalition comes to be, it’s doomed for violent failure.
Speaking of Lenin, what precisely happened to the provisional government almost immediately after the monarchy was overthrown? In hindsight its dissolution allowed for the world’s first true socialist revolution, but in the meantime manifested a horrible, bloody conflict that should not have had to happen (with plenty of help from western imperialists). Because the provisional government was a coalition of fascists, social democrats and communists.
Ron Paul and his decrepit ilk are not anti-war. In fact, a major talking point of the right as of this moment is that diverting so many funds and weapons to Ukraine is weakening us for the coming war on China and we should use that money to double down on military spending.
I understand that a lot of comrades’ points are about this one issue being paramount, but the way Tucker Carlson is “anti-war” is in that he actually supports war, having once hosted a guy on his show who said we had to up the military budget so one day we can “sit on a throne of Chinese skulls.” Associating with these fools as supposed left anti-imperialists Dore and Max Blumenthal did has done nothing but seemingly drive them fucking batshit.
I think the proper move here would be to organize with better groups like ANSWER or your local party. Assuming that we have to ally ourselves with rightists is buying into the idea that their platforms are more popular than they are. We do not need to ally with fascists, they do not “speak for the people” and they are not worth convincing - they’re fucking astroturfers and their main support base comes from the petit bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, be it in votes, money, or actively platforming their ideas. Most Amerikans are against war, not just the loud fascist minority. Most Amerikans don’t vote at all, and most Amerikans are poor.
No it’s fine, I think disagreement is good. I understand that advocating what could seem like a major shift is likely to provoke discord. I view this first rally not in terms of the organizers (which is why even though I accost ANSWER, I don’t have a problem that they have lead a similar event recently), but for the purpose of a headcount for all to see as to how many workers (and pette bourgeois) represent the pro-Russia stance in America as of this moment. This is why I left out the leadership of this first event, speaking generally of those who wish to lead an anti-war movement in the future past this first event. For this, I don’t see Ron Paul and these new libertarianites as contenders, and even if they are they are not for our class as their arguments and interests align with the pette bourgeois. This is why I am focused on ANSWER, as they are both positioning themselves to lead the entire movement, and they aim to represent our class’ interests.
I did not intend to copjacket BAR whatsoever, I just believe that that particular article was unbased, I did not intend to lump my analysis of ANSWER in with him whatsoever (nor any of his associates involved in writing articles), in this you misunderstand me.
Going back to ANSWER, I believe you are misunderstanding the degree of which ANSWER’s character is ex-CIA. It was founded by ex-CIA and regularly platforms these labor aristocratic gangsters for the bourgeois class. Through the documents of Operation Mockingbird, we know the CIA has infiltrated the mainstream media to a large degree, and by viewing this media we see how these state actors lie to our faces day in and day out convincingly as if it is a matter of their lives to convince us of the narrative they are ordered to craft and then propagate. The supposedly retired CIA agents of ANSWER have done nothing to earn our trust in not only their reformation of their ideals (why? What drove this sudden change of heart? They suddenly grew a conscience when this was absent their careers?) but also in their repayment of their victims. Basically a group of CIA agents come along and try to organize our class and because they admitted to us they are/were CIA we should trust them for some reason?
You mentioned they were the most successful anti-war group in these times, to that I ask successful in which terms? Successful for who’s cause? They did organize a large number of people, yes this is true, but as I have stated elsewhere what was accomplished in terms of their supposed objective? Was the war stopped? Was it even struggled with? If large protests are the summation of their actions then they failed at their cause. But then I have to ask, was their goal to stop the war or was their goal to stop us from stopping the war? Have they learned from this failure and corrected their actions since then? I know they have been active for a while now, surely if they were behaving in good faith as true radicals, they would adjust their tactics to better achieve their desired results, to meet their goals? But all we’ve seen is protests.
This is why I compare them to Trotskyists; they infiltrate, play the role, then opportunistically lead the class astray. They talk the talk but walk us into a wall. This is also why I question their class allegiance, the validity of their redemption, and indeed if they are even retired in the first place. I do not believe the CIA deserve any less than the most critical analysis when determining if they can or cannot be trusted, and certainly we should default to rejection given their explicit existence to oppose communism dating back to the 40s. They also worked with Trotsky and his propaganda largely shaped their counterinsurgency rhetoric which has since evolved into modern US propaganda.
Whether it’s ANSWER or another bad choice leading our class in this coalition (and indeed contending to actions the overall movement should take, competing against these libertarianites) nothing of substance will occur unless a Marxist party is able to earn the lead of our class in the coalition, not much will occur. I do believe if Russia is able to influence a section of the pette bourgeois organizers they could also lead the coalition into stopping this war in Ukraine…however due to the economy the next war will be with China of which they will be of little help against as the pette bourgeoisie do not relate to China the way they do to Russia. Russia is a competitor as they are, they see China as the same as the big bourgeois in NATO, and due to this they will very likely support a war against China. The US pette bourgeois are not anti-war, they are anti this war. This is why it is imperative that we work to lead the anti-war coalition, so we can not just oppose the war against Russia but also a war against China. It is also likely that if the pette bourgeois lead the coalition, once the China shift begins, the movement will crumble as it’s leadership dissolves.
I haven’t heard of ANSWER before. History is everything. Links to the CIA is a red-line. Maybe some people believe we should forgive and forget, but I’d call them the latest generations of fools.
Well, we all have learning to do. For some of us it is in “street smarts” as opposed to “book smarts”. There is studying conflict then there is experience within conflict. And the CIA are no simple foe either, they are the best the bourgeoisie has ever come up with. You are no fool for not knowing calculus.