Please read both threads before responding… im not interested in your opinion if you have not read them

https://old.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/jmzsjm/on_the_us_elections/

https://old.reddit.com/r/EuropeanSocialists/comments/jni9tu/the_american_nation/

Albani-Bolsheviki characterises the BLM movement as Social-fascist (ie. Social democracy)

I’m inclined to believe in this analysis because BLM does not really care about the Black lives ruined in Yemen or Libya or the entirety of Africa which has been turned into a child gulag camp for US corporations

They seem to only care about entering the parasitic labour aristocracy of the US

My mind turned back to a video i saw of a Trot at a BLM rally in UK (which i found hilarious at the time) and a black guy was yelling at the trot for “making it political”. I mean of course systemic racism is political but my sense of his use of the word was essentially " we dont want to change anything we just dont want to be subjected to systemic racism" ie. Enter into the first world labour aristocracy

What are your thoughts? (Again please dont respond unless you have read Albani-Bolshevikis analysis)

  • @badsynthaxerror
    link
    53 years ago

    The articles take a mostly third worldist approach (or arguments I’ve seen by third worldists). I’ll admit I’m not that well versed in third worldist theory to even begin there, but I can absolutely follow the logic. I’m still in my first year or so of reading theory.

    I suspect this was written with the mind of current BLM where its been ‘disneyfied’ into a fast food version of its original. Originally, correct me if I’m wrong, there was more of a goal of police defunding which absolutely scared the US, since the police are the guardsmen of the bourgeois system suppressing the masses. Now, you can’t fight the police alone and expect to totally upturn the system, but it does get too close to comfort for the bourgeoisie, so they quickly ‘defanged’ the movement and now you have scandalous opportunists, class collaborators, comforting reformist phrases and t-shirts. Yes, I see where they’re coming from, it certainly meets the definition on that view.

    On nationalist groups within the US I think he does have a point, this is the other side imo why original BLM was defanged quickly as is any civil rights movement.

    I agree with the author on US inhabitants being served by capital built on the backs of colonized peoples of the world obviously not being willing to throw away their privilege, if anything they’d like to join the higher ranks yes, especially if there’s people long othered to step on.

    The settler system goes back generations and is another tool to keep unity via hegemonic hierarchies, so in the case of the US this caste system is interwoven with its imperialism. If you address the racial and other hierarchies alone you do nothing to the underlying system, and you completely fall into the trap the author writes of and the present, but if you totally ignore the settler caste hierarchy like an ostrich you’ll still have internal divisions on a race/gender/religion/etc basis that can readily reconstitute into class divisions if exploitation is not addressed firmly.

    Right now, conditions aren’t there for any revolution, I agree we’re going to continue seeing fascism refine itself (since machinery for that has been chugging a long while) as the US slowly collapses under the weight of its own greed and foolishness. I don’t think this election is much more than a symptom of ‘circling the drain’ , the global proletariat is still hosed no matter who wins. Yes, incompetence is easier to deal with to the point of being a blessing for development, but its like fighting a drunk, if they finally land a blow it hurts more than one from a sober person imo. I’d argue the US worker won’t see any major difference, no matter which neolib in charge their quality of life will continue dropping, and any ‘rights’ legislation will be pure optics and not truly affect the group in question one way or another.