Don’t know why he wastes time criticizing him since JT doesn’t do anything wrong. Also really funny that him and other commenters are complaining about The Deprogram being like Chapo.
Upon deeper research, it turns out Day used to post on the subreddit to dunk on BadEmpanada, which is funny since Day himself has strong BadEmpanada vibes.
I basically agree with the second part actually, communists should probably not waste their time that way. You make a good point.
But as a disabled person who relies on social programs to have housing, food, and healthcare, I find the idea that policies that help vulnerable people in western imperialist nations are actually a bad thing because it stabilizes capitalism a particularly toxic idea that I see far too often. The idea that people like me should be made to suffer more so that communism can happen sooner seems outright sociopathic to me. And I’ve never understood the argument.
And don’t tell me that barely surviving on barely functioning social programs is me enjoying the spoils of the third world. I’m not living the high life lol. I’m living a terrible existence actually.
Like, be honest with your intentions here. Do I deserve housing, food, and healthcare NOW. Or should I wait until communism happens (which probably wont happen in my lifetime, especially if I dont have housing, food, and healthcare) to have those things?
I think communists should should focus on doing things that help the proletariat in their countries, to win over those people. Whether thats direct action/mutual aid or by advocating for social programs. Like I’ll tell you honestly, when I hear communists say things about this about the social programs that I require to live, I do not feel cared for by my comrades. I feel abandoned and set aside. If we aren’t fighting to make things better for the vulnerable, then what is the point of all this? Obvbiously the real way to help the vulnerable a communist revolution, but I dont see whats wrong with making things better in the short term as well.
If worrying about my own material conditions and ability to survive is a bad thing, I’d love to know why. Because I literally would not be alive without social programs.
Where did I ever say communists shouldn’t advocate for social programs? I’m not disparaging or abandoning anyone. Of course Marxists should organize and agitate for these programs, but they should do so because they are a human right and in our material class interests and not because of fabricated MMT nonsense. Ideally they should be planned and administered for free, regardless of any costs or monetary policy. If capitalism reaches crisis because it’s unable to sustain all the social programs we need, we should take that time to push past the contradictions of capitalism and force through the programs anyway. Basically, MMT lies and obscures class conflict whereas Marxism prepares us for it. One says we can have our cake and eat it too (class peace and proletarian class interests fulfilled), and one tells the truth that the cake will be gone (it will require class war to fulfill proletarian interests).
One, when confronted with economic crisis like the social democrats of Greece in recent years, will balk and buckle. The MMTers will be left flabbergasted and confused by rampant inflation and economic sabotage by the bourgies. The Marxists will be prepared for it and be ready to stomp on their little throats to force what needs to be forced, regardless of what the line was supposed to do within capitalist logic. MMT are stuck inside capitalism and cannot break out of it.
It’s my opinion that western nations cannot support all the necessary social programs for its people without imperialist superprofits, and that inability should be confronted directly - ie, we shouldn’t lie to everyone and say that there’s a magic way we can be both capitalist and have all the things we want! We need to be direct, and be clear that the things we want are not possible in the current arrangement of things so the current arrangement must change.
Sorry, looks like I jumped to a conclusion or misread you then. That sounds good to me.
marxists can push for, say, a return of manufacturing jobs to the first world, on the grounds that everyone deserves a good job. the goal there is to end up on the workers’ side when capitalism is unable to restrain its profit-seeking and people are finally brought face-to-face with a need for change. you’re supposed to be there every step of the way fighting “for all the transitional demands, requirements, and needs of the masses” knowing full well that “the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner” leaving socialism as the only viable option.
the other side of the coin, though, is that all of the globalization and financialization that’s creating some precarity for first world workers is progressive because it’s laying the foundations of the new order and driving the classes into conflict- creating the objective conditions and subjective factors necessary for socialist revolution. in fact, the very worst thing that could happen is for reactionary petty bourgeois to actually succeed in bringing jobs back for a while, because good times for some would only prolong the agony for the rest (i.e. those of us horrified by the prospect of another grinding century of hell world). american nationalists have basically the same economic pitch as fascism, and our position is the same either way: we don’t want to shore up capitalism’s crumbling economic foundations, we want to demonstrate how capitalism cannot continue to meet people’s needs.
I think it’s pretty clear how all of the above logic extends to social programs too.
I wouldn’t say that people like us should be made to suffer. mainly I don’t like the way that’s phrased because it implies that we actually have control over what happens here, and because to the extent that we do have agency it’s ofc nonsensical to wield it against the people you’re trying to convince that you’re looking out for.
but also, there’s no point in the lowest stratum falling off the map if the middle strata aren’t brought down too in a broad deterioration of all of society. conditions were savagely bad for huge sections of the english working class for a long time and it never went anywhere. so I don’t think that e.g. putting anti-homeless spikes on ledges would be progressive, it’s just senseless pain since nothing else is going to change anyway.
still, I don’t fully get your horrified reaction calling this kind of logic sociopathic or toxic. listen to [this short clip] (https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006666397105000518/1086762469374050395/matt-christman-food.mp4) please and lmk what you think.
I think people are generally right to not give a shit what happens to americans. we obviously have a vested interest in our own survival but I wouldn’t blame anyone who’s unapologetic about wanting to bring down the american empire no matter how many american lives it costs.
you can say you’re oppressed and barely getting by and so on but it’s not like getting bombed or running a sewing machine 12 hours a day so that your child doesn’t starve to death. I’m on a lot of the same programs as you and I would say that it’s absolutely the fruits of empire doled out to shut (enough of) us up to stabilize the system. I get probably twice as much in snap every month as I actually need to survive, I get free healthcare that’s not good but covers most basic needs. poor people in sierra leone aren’t getting $300/mo for food, free hrt, free gas, help with electricity in the summer and heating in the winter, etc. idk it just strikes me as kind of powercry-2 to complain about how bad we have it here; we’re exceptionally lucky to benefit as much from empire as we do
I don’t necessarily disagree with you I just dont think its a message that helps us or gets people on our side. “Your food stamps come from the plundering of the third world” might be technically true (I guess, I think its more clawing back a bit of the plunder that would otherwise just sit in some billionaire’s bank account in a tax haven) but if you tell someone that who needs that shit to live you’re pretty effectively driving them away and I think is incredibly misguided to call that a selfish impulse. I definitly think western Marxists should advocate for social programs like the other reply to this said, but I also think western Marxists should focus heavily on mutual aid that feeds people in ways that dont rely on the government as well.
Me too but its not true for most people on snap, particularly poor families. And partially this is only true because of the state I live in. If I was on what the feds give only it would be significantly less the case. Saying this strikes me as welfare queen rhetoric that I dont think we should be engaging in. Also I only have so much extra snap because i’m not able to spend it on hot meals lol. Also I was running out of Snap fairly quickly before the Covid bonus.
I agree that the only reason we get this stuff is to make us complacent. But whenever anyone suggests that maybe Americans would be more revolutationairy if they didnt have these things I just think “how is someone supposed to do revolution if they’re starving?” I think of hierarchy of need pyramids here. I don’t think its impossible to agitate people on welfare, considering I’m a communist on welfare.
Plus every time this comes up I just tihnk of the guy on the old sub who told me that disabled people on welfare have different class interests that the working class, and cant be comrades. That pissed me off so much.
Yes we are, but it its ignorance to expect people to think of that first when their own survival is on the line. And I think its bad messaging. Like maybe we can say it to people who are already at an advanced level but even here, now, there is an instinctual side of me that feels pushed away and uncared for by the narrative. Higher level thinking keeps me away from that but for a lot of people that wont be the case. I think we need to focus on what works here, where we are.
I can understand having that impulse as an emotional response to the exploitation of empire. But I stand pretty solid in thinking that wanting working class people who do nothing but try to live the best lives they can under a hellish system deserve to die because of where they were born and just because they got lucky on the “where you are born” lottery to be misguided. Maybe I’m being a chauvinist idk. But I don’t think it really makes sense to say “you should align yourself with people who think your life is expendable”.
I think saying “worse conditions for the disabled and other vulnerable people are better for creating revolution” is… ok I get it in a way because they’re saying “more suffering now for better results later”. And I know wanting revolution isnt a selfish cause. So maybe “sociopathic” is a bit far. But I think its fair as an emotional reaction for me to go “you wanting me to suffer more so I revolt sooner feels like you dont actually care about me, just see me as a tool, and that doesnt make me want to fight for your cause, also the more I suffer the less I am able to think about things like revolution so you’re wrong anyway.” I’m not going to abandon leftism over it but it does make me go “do my comrades really care about me?”. Like you outright said that some leftists may think of me as expendable. How am I supposed to feel about that?