Basically rhetoric doesn’t work in that it leaves everyone vulnerable to dogma, which in turn is easily weaponized. I agree with you that some people can be swayed. But being swayed is not the same as concrete enfranchisment into a socialist or anticolonial process of history.

This is why I stress the discursive nature of politics in the US and its ostensibly civil religious form. It functions to disrupt rhetoric and enfranchise it into it’s own colonial, capitalist project. There is no rhetorical way out of this and those of us who have been swayed are actually still quite vulnerable. There must be something concrete to attach it all to and unfortunately I’m afraid we do not have this in the US and we likley will not in the near future. This is why I say there is no social infrastructure to accomplish what we need, or hope to gain through rhetoric. Without such an infrastructure we may plant seeds that will be harvested by the empire.

Fascists have it incrediblely easy. Their rhetoric synergizes well with a nation of colonizers and an environment of perpetual outrage. The “rise” (is it rising or is it just status quo) of fascism is not entirely because of rhetoric but because of history. The same history that includes a range of communist action that ranges from semi-effective, ineffectual, and even outright colonial outcomes. Fascism is politically natural here. Communism or anticolonialism, on the other hand has little to cling to beyond it’s unity and struggle with capital. This makes our rhetoric potentially dangerous. I think of the Maoist community in my area and how absolutely out of touch they are. They uphold their favorite white saviors and intentionally neglect local Indigenous voices. It’s not unlike how communists of the 19th century were often guilty of exploiting free Black labor for organizing, only to occasionally leave them high and dry when threatened by bosses. Both of these parties are saturated in rhetoric and discourse (dogma really) but what have they achieved? Colonialism.

This is why I want to direct people to more concrete issues. I would expect that by addressing real community needs a number of advantages would emerge. First, building relationships and engaging with the community will illuminate a more concrete politic that can hopefully develop into a line that the community is on board with, and a line that doesn’t align with colonial discourse. Next, you have an emerging infrastructure of information that makes it easier for the politic to grow on it’d own terms, discover it’s own vulnerabilies and weaknesses. This can bring about more awareness of the dangers of American political discourse because there is a community that it’s own collective understanding of it’s needs and can compare it to popular discourse.

Of course none of this happen seamlessly or without setbacks. The union I am in, for example, never goes hard enough with our demands and is usually unable to realize it’s potential, and the real power it has. But if we were more forceful with our demands we could alienate current and prospective members which we cannot afford to do. If we let dogma get in the way we would rip ourselves apart. Sometimes you have to live with that kind of stuff because we can’t lose what we have built up.

As for hope, it’s a tough problem and be warned I am rather callous on this issue because I think it is easily problematized. IMO it is part of the corrosive discourse. Hope is not self evident, it is not to be found, it is made. If it is not made, and if it is not yours, it is capable of betraying you. Our problems are not all always death sentances, and not as dire as those abroad. Our problems should be seen as opportunities to assess the contradictions and move forward. Americans have had it pretty damn good for a long time, and regards of current difficulties this is largely still the case. If we chase hope for its own sake, or to keep us going, we will end up harvested by colonial discourse. Hope in the US has its own imperial affectation and we must be aware of this.

Ya know, in school the hope question comes up a lot. I will notice students are frustrated to learn things aren’t looking so good. I bring this up to the professor as the TA and it gets addressed in the most awful way with techno optimism, green (or stakeholder) capitalism, sustainablility etc. One section of students will buy it, the other will descend further into melancholy. Both sections further lost in the discourse. IMO hope chasing is dangerous. If we want help we have to do it ourselves. If people aren’t willing to build it, then truly our hopelessness is merely an imperial melancholy resulting from losing privilege and is a feature of colonial discourse.