Image is of a Colombian campaign rally in support of Iván Cepeda of the left-wing Historic Pact.
As always, my weekly preamble is in spoiler tags below.
preamble
The unstable stare-down in the Middle East continues. Yet again, there's been little region-level change, but there have been some big escalations. Namely, the entity has decided to go further into Lebanon, with all the casualties and destruction that will bring them, while simultaneously abandoning bases elsewhere in the theater due to constant pressure by Hezbollah. Seeking to pressure Hezbollah away from their successful strategy of attrition on IOF forces that attempt to advance only to receive rapid onset symptoms of FPVdroneitis, they have also decided to resume airstrikes on Beirut, which is an obvious violation of the region-wide ceasefire that Iran may or may not militarily respond to, but they do seem very diplomatically displeased as of me writing this sentence. Meanwhile, Iran has responded to US drone incursions with strikes on Kuwait military bases. Trump has escalated his demands lately, so a return to war seems more likely than ever.
In Bolivia, Paz appears to be escalating in response to undiminished general strikes, with Congress allowing him to declare states of emergency at will, and therefore get the military more easily involved. In Colombia's runoff elections, far-right candidate Espriella won the first round of the runoff election with 43.7% of the vote ahead of left-winger Cepeda's 40.9%. Every poll had Cepeda beating Espriella by varying margins, so this appears to be a fairly standard case of the US putting their thumb on the scale; as the saying goes, they do not trust the population of Colombia to do democracy correctly and they couldn't risk them accidentally electing the wrong person.
Over in Sudan, the conflict appears like it is moving in a pro-SAF direction, with some significant military gains against the UAE-backed RSF, although the military situation is still fairly complicated. A potentially notable news item that I missed a couple weeks ago is that the US seems to have ended their strategic ambiguity over who they consider the true government in Sudan, as they now firmly recognize the SAF over the RSF. Why exactly this has occurred is a little beyond me. Could be because they see how the winds are blowing militarily; could be because they want to fuck over the UAE for some perceived slight (to be America's ally is fatal etc etc). The humanitarian situation appears no better though, with millions of people remaining in incredible hardship and near-starvation, and RSF-backed genocidal atrocities of the kind that Zionists would nod approvingly at.
Thankfully, China is looking at all these manifold crises and has dramatically escalated the speed at which they are writing strongly worded letters and are calling for a revitalized UN.
Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.
Please check out the RedAtlas!
The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.
The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine
Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:
UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.
Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.
Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict
Sources:
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:
Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.
I agree, this is partly the reason I don't take third-partyism seriously. But none of that has anything to do with the realized and still potential utility of figures like Mamdani. The DSA ate shit over anti-Zionism for several years ago; this year the New York mayor publicly snubbed the annual fascist zionist parade. That kind of normalization is worth all the annoying liberal nonsense that comes with electoralism, and I'm sorry none of you on Hexbear have ever made a convincing argument for why we should throw away that normalization of our politics
The about-face on Zionism is largely opportunist, it's following a sea change. The big Mamdani NY stans (these are the same people who defended Zionism in DSA) didn't have a change of heart, generally speaking, they just no longer thought of antizionism as a threat to their electoralism commitments and general liberalism. Forwarding and organizing around an accurate consciousness!? Perish the thought! Always triangulate, they think. One needs mass appeal to grow the "electeds".
The motion to antizionism, the credit, lies with the Palestinian resistance. Their work, their documentation, and unfortunately, the widespread violence visited upon them by Zionists, unpalatable to younger generations. Hence why TikTok was put in fascist control.
What on earth are you even talking about.
there was a while there before and in the early parts of the campaign where he said he wouldn't condemn "globalize the intifada" then after the obama call he caved eventually and did.
then he sent cops to protect land sales, then he didn't go to the nazi parade.
he's not a consistent principled antizionist but he constantly pisses them off
This is basically par for the course with "progressive" liberal politicians. It's just walking a line between constituencies, groups pushing and pulling in opposite directions. Perhaps saliently, in your example, the one good thing he "did" was passive while the other two required either an active statement or sending cops.
But the "[X] politician is pissing people off" is basically a constant.
I don't really care if they're opportunistic about it; what matters is the extent to which they normalize it and advance our cause, all that matters is that they DO bend the knee on anti-zionism
If the anti-electoralists on this site had gotten their way, there wouldn't be even a hint of anti-Zionism in the mainstream, because only arch-Zionists would be elected; instead, anti-Zionism and socialism are normalized and popular with legitimized government backing, in one the largest cities in America and politicians, genuine or otherwise, have realized anti-zionism is a winning campaign strategy
Not opportunistic. Opportunist. This means their role is not actually about expanding or educating or pushing this forward, but in adopting what they think is already popular enough to suit their needs. You have their role exactly reversed. Same way as liberals do by giving, say, Obama credit for gay rights.
Do you believe that is what they are doing?
Anti-zionism was already mainstream before Mamdani was elected. You give far too much credit to bourgeois politicians and their roles. And I already reminded you who deserves credit.
Dead wrong. You're confusing the same words being used for different things for being the same things expanding. Bernie calls socdem welfare programs socialism and now socialism isn't a taboo word. Did socialism itself simply become mainstream because the word was used? Or did it grow when believers in socdems ate shit and this promoted them to join orgs and become more educated? I already described the utility of socdems like this and how they misuse the words and that this is the most you could hope for from them.
And they deserve no credit for the popularity of antizionism. I already described that as well.
This is a sweeping and unearned generalization but would also mean basically nothing because, again, we are looking at opportunism.
Finally, somebody talking actual fucking sense. Christ.
Why are you focused on "credit"? Nobody in this rat country deserves "credit" for baseline anti-zionism, it's a responsibility and obligation. What matters is if that obligation is being fulfilled and the normalization of anti-zionism is taking place, that's the only utility we should be concerned about.
The Palestinian people have already been failed, so there's no conception of "credit" to go around and trivializing the extent and severity of zionist support in this country is not meeting that responsibility
A politician on TV being anti-zionist, opposing Zionist politicians, and voicing pro-Palestinian sentiments IS A BIG DEAL IN AMERICA. Pretending otherwise because a part of you're brain is telling you "don't hand it to the socdems" when you never had to hand it to them to begin with, is displaying some real unserious priorities
Americans are fucking apathetic cattle; they require a permission structure to accept a belief as legitimate, and legitimizing anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian sentiment are the prerequisites for ensuring zionists with mass murder on their minds don't get elected in the first place
Palestinians and Palestinian resistance don't have any direct power over that process; Americans do and so advancing socdems who bend the knee to anti-zionism becomes our responsibility, only to the extent they normalize anti-zionism
You've assigned credit several times. I am pointing out that you've got it wrong giving DSA socdem politicians credit for it - like the idea that they made antizionism mainstream. That idea is absurd and borderline disrespectful of those who actually did that work and engaged in struggle.
This has become passive voice...
Who did I say deserves credit? Tell me.
And it is a following, not leading trend. People said the same things about gay marriage when Democrats slowly adopted stances theoretically in favor of it. They later sought credit. But we know that the struggle was before themz that they opposed it until they no longer found it strategic, and that many continued to oppose it in reality (and still do!). We should appreciate it as the a sign of a separate struggle that bourgeois politicians try to co-opt it.
This is not replying to anything I have said.
Okay and Mamdani is at the tail end of that, more an exploiter of that trend than someone who has pushed it forward, as I have pointed out 3 times to 0 response.
They had and have more than Mamdani or any NYC DSA liberal. Materially and obviously, engaging in the struggle for decades, documenting it, sharing information... I've said these things already 3 times, again to no response.
I'll ask again: do you actually think "bending the knee" (a Game of Thrones reference in this allegedly serious discussion?) is what is happening?
You mistake political morality for political mechanics. I did not assign credit, I assigned structural utility, leadership embodying a movement, or in this case, merely a widespread social understanding of genocide. You're the one who brought up credit and I didn't claim the DSA made anti-zionism mainstream; I said politicians who may or may not be attached to their name are further normalizing it and legitimizing it among the apathetic bulk of Americans. The bulk of Americans who didn't care when university students were brutalized by zionist hate mobs and police, but will now vote for politicians who utilize anti-zionism as a persuasive campaign strategy. Now you can consider that unfair all you like, but that's just moralism, Americans don't care about protesters getting beaten; they barely care what comes out of the average politician's mouth. The tail has a utility, and it's an important catalyst for further developments that transform and scale anti-zionism from merely mainstream vibes, to a politically dominant expression of state power
The fundamental problem here is that you're conspiracy-brained, and you don't understand the concept of embodiment or the importance of leadership in solidifying a movement's understanding of the world
Obviously politicians are the tail, but you're confusing me pointing out that tail has utility with me supposedly giving them all the "credit." Leadership, despite being a tail, is still an indispensable part of a maturing movement and the prime key, mechanism, and catalyst for acquiring state power and utilizing it, people like you who traffic in pseudo-anarchist conceptions of power, want us to remain in the "getting our ass beaten by the state" phase of political development, because you think politicians who aren't in the woods with guns are inherently worthless and suspect
Lenin all by his lonesome didn't build the workers' movement; that particular tail spent alot of its time exiled in Switzerland, and yet would you argue his leadership was just some incidental byproduct?
You tell me, you're the one who brought it up, I say there's no credit to go around because the genocide already happened. I'm concerned with utility that can be used to stop it; you're concerned with who gets their due on social media
Dismissing your premise is a reply, building a house of cards around dismissing the concept of leadership and structural utility is not a game I have to play
We are talking about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Americans, by and large do not give a fuck about Palestinians, even those who acknowledge the Palestinian people have been subjected to genocide, by your logic should we start handing out credit to the Israelis for also "documenting and sharing", by showing their genocidal asses, and making anti-Zionism IN AMERICA mainstream? You see why a credit based conception of power falls on it's face? Again what matters is political utility and who holds the reins of power in the state. The Palestinian people cannot run for office in the United States and only those worthless tails of yours can actually turn the lever that says "aid to Israel."
You of course repeatedly assigned credit and still do so, and I responded to it in context in ways that are quite clear. I will point it out again here. "The DSA ate shit over anti-Zionism for several years ago; this year the New York mayor publicly snubbed the annual fascist zionist parade. That kind of normalization is worth all the annoying liberal nonsense that comes with electoralism, and I'm sorry none of you on Hexbear have ever made a convincing argument for why we should throw away that normalization of our politics"
Now, it was a petty comment that ignored basically everything I had said (a pattern that has repeated), but it's ascribing far more importance and meaning than is actually there to a bourgeois politician claiming to adopt a view that was already popular among a constituency whose vote he wanted. This point was belabored a few times.
"leadership embodying a movement" is also exaggerative and assigning absurd amounts of credit. Like... you did the thing you are denying doing in the same exact sentence.
I used the word first but no I was responding to your comment that exaggerated impact and responsibility.
Mamdani is a NYC DSA candidate.
So you're giving credit. And I responded to this specific claim as well.
This is fictitious storytelling at best. But it's really just putting two separate things together and implying they are related, but... how closely are they? What's this "persuasive campaign strategy"? Do those words mean anything? Is it just that he won the election so it was therefore a "persuasive campaign" in which saying some antizionist things was a strategy? It's not particularly clear, but what is clear is that we're back to vaguely giving credit rah rah bourgeois politician adopted some left framings.
What did I consider unfair? To what are you specifically referring?
So do they not care or is it actually valuable and important that a bourgeois politician from the opportunist wing of DSA said some antizionist things and so Hexbears are "throwing away" essential antizionist progress when they point out that he's an opportunust bourgeois politician?
Now socdems are being given vague credit for things that haven't even happened.
I haven't mentioned conspiracy.
Do you mean Marx's references to embodiment? Because if so I understand it fine thanks. The irony of suggesting this while exaggerating the role of a bourgeois politician.
Leadership is indeed important. Mamdani isn't our leader, though? Which movement are you referring to, specifically?
Bourgeois politicians are the sole group you have given any credit to on this topic and you've repeatedly done so. I responded to that...
There is a stark inconsistency here. A pattern. The combination of vagueness and jargon with assigning grand importance. It ends up making these kinds of statements close to meaningless, they just communicate "actually this stuff is very important", sidestepping the actual criticisms that have been issued.
Do you think anyone here says, "leadership is unimportant"? Is that what we're talking about? Is Mamdani the "leadership" you have in mind? Of what? This kind of vague posting about state power in the context of a bourgeois politician not reigning in his cops is particularly funny. Has Kautsky been resurrected as a Green New Deal stan?
Which of my conceptions are pseudo-anarchist?
Getting creative, are we?
Please do your best to respond to what I'm saying and not cartoons you invent.
Now we're comparing Mamdani to Lenin. I'd try answering your question but it's so far from anything I've said that it would probably be counterproductive. You're arguing with phantoms.
So are you just giving up all pretense of good faith? You have plenty to say about what I have said about credit but can't simply state what my very first sentence about it was?
My question was partly rhetorical, so I'll just spell it out for you. You said, "The Palestinian people have already been failed, so there's no conception of "credit" to go around". Here is what I originally said about credit: "Palestinian resistance."
If you put these statements together, my meaning is clear, right? I'm implying you are yet again being dismissive towards the Palestinian resistance. This is because you seek to exaggerate the importance and value of Mamdani.
The genocide is also happening. It didn't stop with the election cycle and half ceasefires.
I don't think any reading of this thread would suggest that your concern is utility to stop the genocide of Palestine. You spent your time exaggerating the importance of Mamdani, sidestepping critique, making nonsense statements about how antizionism is mainstreamed, and are now being exceptionally inventive in your descriptions of me and others. It's not hard to see what is your priority.
In terms of who gets their due, yes it's important to not give socdem politicians credit for work they opposed until it became electorally convenient. It's an important lesson for understanding both the role of those socdems, of why you should not be surprised when they are opportunist and nut defend that opportunism, and for what the actual leading work was in the first place. Surely you, focused on utility, would be more interested in the thing that worked through mass organization and enjoined labor and communist parties instead of exclusively promoting and protecting from criticism the eventual liberal electoral cooption.
Do you remember why I brought up Palestine? It wasn't moralism.
You're simply not responding to what I have said and are belaboring points about things I haven't. That last comment was an acute example. Feel free to more clearly communicate what you mean in a way that is firmly grounded in what I said, with quotes if needed.
And yet those to whom I have credit are infinitely more responsible for the mainstreaming of Zionism than opportunist socdems like Mamdani. Israel is also more responsible for that mainstreaming than Mamdani, yes. That's... obvious? But I would probably avoid a word like "credit" because that might imply praise for their role.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. What is a credit based conception of power? Who has it?
What matters depends on what one is trying to accomplish in their purview and success requires building an accurate understanding of the forces at work. "Political utility" is so vague that it could mean almost anything. Holding "the reins of power in the state" is clearly not quite what we are talking about as you are all over this thread making excuses for why Mamdani can't use them. The consistent thru-line is to protect poor baby Mamdani from valid critique.
Stolen land sales.
I didn't ignore anything you said, I outlined how leadership can solidify and embody an already existing political development (or in the case of the US, a social vibe) into actualized political power
Now, you want to continuously misrepresent that as me not giving people "credit" when all I've done the whole time is point to the necessity of structural utility i.e. anti-Zionists in positions OF POWER
Uh, yes when a campaign wins it's typically because it was persuasive (are we being for real?), so basically now you're arguing that anti-Zionism actually has no utility in campaigns and isn't politically persuasive to voters, basically the DNC line on pro-Palestinian politics. Nice knot you tied yourself into
Your idea that "credit" (or more accurately in my argument, utility) can't be given to leadership because a pre-existing movement or sentiment somehow means leaders are worthless tail-enders. Leaders bad; spontaneous, vibe-based movement good, hence my use of the term "pseudo-anarchist."
Nice try, I didn't compare Lenin to Mamdani, I used Lenin as an example of why leadership is crucial to the development of a movement, even if the movement preconfigured the leadership, that point is made completely irrespective of the qualities of Mamdani because I'm swinging an axe at the foundation of your political premises, not your irrational hatred of Mamdani
We are talking about the internal politics of the United States of America, the Palestinian resistance does not have a power base or social-political standing in the United States, this is an observation of reality; a member of the Palestinian resistance is not going to be elected to office in the US, that doesn't make Mamdani more important than the resistance; without the resistance, their wouldn't a concept of Palestinian liberation or solidarity
Hence why thinking about this through the concept of "credit" is stupid and seeing this through the lens of access to power is more in line with an actual materialist analysis; politicians like Mamdani have access to the levers of power in the US, the Palestinian resistance does not, even tho their actions are the most important aspect of Palestinian liberation
This is just you backsliding directly into analytical flattening. You're shifting the focus back to a historical ledger of who is "more" guilty or praiseworthy and completely missing the entire mechanics of how hegemony is actually maintained, managed, and reproduced in real-time. All you're doing is engaging in one rhetorical evasion after another, bringing up "credit" and then pretending like I'm the one who's hung up on it. While also simultaneously using "credit" to dismiss the necessity of figures like Mamdani, who solifiy and legitimize the anti-zionism you seem to take for granted
Pure semantic moralism, that's all you got, you can't address the central premise of my argument, which is anti-Zionist politicians must be in positions of power to turn off the lever named "US aid to Israel"
No, it is what we're talking about, but you don't want to admit that because that would expose your obsession with semantic moralism instead of materialist analyses
And this right here is just bad faith garbage. I didn't make excuses for Mamdani, I outlined what his thinking is and why (the power of the NYPD) he feels the need to compromise with New York capital, followed by me literally fuckin saying "I think he's wrong, I think he has the social and political capital to go through with it
As I've said, the only group to which you have ascribed any importance or relevance to this point on this topic is socdem bourgeois politicians. And I responded to that by saying that if anyone, the Palestinian resistance deserves the credit. And you've become sidetracked by trying to pretend I my focus has been in pushing some grand thesis about antizionism rather than responding to your wrong prioritization and claims.
I am not shifting, I am replying directly to what you said, after quoting it, in context, with clear and plain language. You seem hung up on the word "credit". You suggested my logic would imply something, as if that something were abusrd and/or wrong: that by Israelis would deserve credit for the normalization of antizionism. And I am answering you: yes, they certainly do own responsibility for much of it, I just wouldn't use credit so I could avoid the appearance of any form of validation of genocidal Zionism. In other words, your "by your logic" claim is not pointing to something absurd, but something obviously true.
It is quite strange that you act like my focus is simply who deserves credit for the normalization of antizionism. I brough up the topic of antizionism as an example of how Mamdani et al are opportunists. They worked against this for decades, and only started using the language once it was already popular. The entire relevancy of discussing the Palestinian resistance is to contrast it to your focus on Zohran Mamdani as such a valuable force for the normalization of antizionism.
Missing it? It is simply not the topic at all. Unless by hegemony you are being vague again and you're trying to include antizionism in it? Who knows.
You are. It was a one-off example of my trying to recenter you, to point out how ridiculous your focus was, and now you cna't stop talking about it. Heck, you're trying to act like it's my political foundations or something, lmao. I'm not responsible for the various narratives about me that you've invented, but a lot of them have to do with "credit" for whatever reason.
See, look at this slew of absurdities and inventions. We are discussing the necessity of Mamdani and his like? I am not so vague. I pointed out that he's an opportunist similar to Bernie and you should temper your expectations massively. Your response to this was this silly made-up nonsense: "But none of that has anything to do with the realized and still potential utility of figures like Mamdani. The DSA ate shit over anti-Zionism for several years ago; this year the New York mayor publicly snubbed the annual fascist zionist parade. That kind of normalization is worth all the annoying liberal nonsense that comes with electoralism, and I'm sorry none of you on Hexbear have ever made a convincing argument for why we should throw away that normalization of our politics".
Note that this comment tries, again, to place the normalization of antizionism proximal to Mamdani, implies that we are somehow throwing it away by critiquing Mamdani as an opportunist, something that you seem to have now conceded? No coherence at all, just jargon.
Regarding "take for granted": lol. lmao. I dare you to explain your reasoning in full clarity and specificity.
At the moment I think I'm spending most of my time trying to get your responses to make any sense and in any way respond to what I am actually saying and not the stuff you make up, but my main points are actually about very basic and well-established Marxist thought, e.g. on what opportunism is, who is opportunist, and how you're falling for opportunism in particular with these unprincipled statements in defense of Mamdani.
That's the central premise of your argument? I'll remind you that I brought up antizionism. I joined this conversation when you were making excuses for Mamdani not firing Tisch. I brought up antizionism to explain that Mamdani is an opportunist. That he comes from a political strain that is itself consistently opportunist. That their commitments are shallow, they depend on conflating words with different meanings, that you should temper your expectations and not attribute so much to them.
So, let's accept that your stated central premise is just what you have stated. What does that have to do with what I have said? What is it in response to? How does it contradict what I have said? It's almost too vague to engage with, it reads like a truism, but its relevance to this discussion, to Mamdani, to what I have said? It just reads as pointless straw man and deflection. Hell, I could even argue with your "central argument", but WHY? Why do I need to tilt at every vague windmill you invent?
I strongly disagree that the topic we are discussing is, holding "the reins of power in the state". At the moment 90% of my time is spent trying to keep you on task and honest. And repeatedly reminding you of what I said previously, as it doesn't match your characterizations. And of course, you had to cut my quote in half because the second half demonstrates the inconsistency lol.
I think basically anyone reading this comment section can easily identify that the pattern is excuse-making for Mamdani.
Hell let's just look at this one quoted section.
You outlined what Mamdani's thinking is? Are you in his head? How do you know? Aren't we talking about just some guy, a bourgeois politician? I can describe him following the same pattern as his predecessor and the leverage (largely nonexistent) that anti-bourgeois organizations have over him. How can you describe Mamdani's thinking? Is he your buddy? You see some kinsihp or something? No, you are being overly generous about possible reasons he could be justified in not firing his police chief in order to ensure he meets his campaign promises. This is going above and beyond to make excuses for him.
You saying you think he's wrong does not change the attempt to rationalize and justify. Look at what this was meant to be a response to and tell me how it responds to it as anything other than rationalization agianst critique.
I said they are important in normalizing anti-Zionism; I didn't say they are THE ONLY IMPORTANT people when it comes to "this topic"
If you can't even bother to get that aspect of my argument correct, then I'm not wasting my time with the rest of your semantic essay
You skipped again over 90% of my response and are now complaining about what I "can't even other to get". Oh dear.
Read what I said again more slowly. What I said and what you said actually mean different things. I will explain if you need it, but I think you are fully able to read and understand.
Semantics is meaning, particularly the meaning of words. It's common to dismiss others as just arguing semantics, but this is almost always just a bad faith defense of wrong ideas or an aversion to discussing them. Because semantics is highly relevant to the flim-flammery of opportunist language, the most important aspect being conflation. Is Mamdani simply an "anti-Zionist" as you keep saying? Or is he an opportunist that used "anti-Zionism" and is not actually sticking to it (there being virtually zero material reason for him to do so)? If we are lazy with our application of terms and apply them broadly, we can describe a wishy-washy opportunist in terms that imply a committed pro-Palestine cadre has taken control of New York.
It is... embarrassing for a Marxist to complain about semantics. What do you think Marx was doing?
Again, it all boils down to conspiracy, which, of course is immune to counter-evidence, such as the fact if he was an opportunist, then he would've joined the zionist parade that took place the other day and used the excuse of "supporting New York Jews", since that would've materially benefited him. The opportunist just missed the perfect opportunity to cozy up to the Zionist power base.
Yet he didn't, and your arguments can't account for that, beyond more conspiracy theorizing, classic political idealism
You want to haggle over wording because you can't deal with how the pipeline of power actually works, ignoring the realities of municipal politics and assuming without evidence that Mamdani can just abandon his base without consequences, a potential risk of national federal politics but not city-municipal level formations. This is why you rely on semantics, because material reality escapes you
This right here, says EVERYTHING I need to know about you, Marx did not argue semantics; he argued mechanics gleaned from observation, critique through analyzing concrete conditions and economic flows, Marx famously broke away from the Young Hegelians precisely because they believed that fighting over the "meaning of words" and ideas was how you changed society
You are, in the most fundamental sense of the word, a Liberal
Oh I guess we're starting with my 7th sentence this time and ignoring the rest, lol.
There is nothing conspiratorial about a bourgeois politician having no real commitment to following through on their campaign promises and not standing by groups and movements they used to get elected. It is, in fact, the open and plain norm. Same as liberals dithering about how that is smart and good.
Opportunists walk the line, they try to play "both sides". The classic version is variations on class collaborationism, presenting it instead as a practical way to achieve working class aims. Consequently, they absolutely take actions that seemingly work in both directions. You'll notice that his "action" in this case is passive, it's basically just PR, it has no real material impacts. This is what can be pointed to, apparently, for concrete action. Yes, he will surely receive pushback from Zionist lobbies that push no matter what and are quite well funded. But this is a fairly minor action, is it not? Just not attending a fascist parade? But then, more materially, when it comes time to push against settler stolen land sales? Why, send the cops! That's a more direct action, don't you think? Hard to be more concrete than the use of state violence... against pro-Palestinian protesters.
You say this is something immune to counter-evidence, but of course it would be simple: Mamdani could consistently be on the side he proclaimed to be, not wishy-washy and doing this shit. The direct evidence of the opportunism is already staring you in the face. And again, this is just one guy. If he were backed by and beholden to a disciplined party, we could discuss what strategic retreats might look like, but we aren't even at that minimal level of seriousness. It's just one socdem politician beholden to bourgeois electoral interests.
It really seems like your idea of opportunism is that you pretend to be on one side and then fully and nakedly join the other once elected to be a government official. And you wonder why we discuss semantics...
It is... trivial and implied, not even something to account for. I think you may also not know what idealism is? That's certainly not a correct use of the Marxist term, even putting aside the flawed logic.
I'm not haggling. I'm telling you when you aren't communicating correctly or coherently. You make references to terms but use them in contexts that don't make sense. You use exaggerative, praising language for electoralist projects, wrapping in in vague socialist terms, and use denigrating language for on the ground organizing efforts. I try to figure out what you might mean between all this noise and explain, and you ignore 90% of what I respond with. This is a pattern.
We must of course discuss semantics because you don't seem to actually know the basic lexicon of Marxism even though you are constantly deploying it to promote opportunists or denigrate those with whom you're disagreeing. It is made the subject through your behaviors. It is not my fault I have to try and figure out your meaning through the obscurantism. It is also not my fault that I have to correct mistakes that you make central to your responses, repeatedly.
And we return to you just making things up about my positions again. So creative! PS at the risk of talking about semantics (oh no!) I'm not sure what Mamdani's base even is aside from DSA liberals that 100% oppose discipline.
If it's material reality I assume you can refer to concretely it and explain yourself with specifics. Quote me saying the things you just alleged I did. Go ahead! Be specific! Material reality needs to be respected!
PS the thing you are referring to is at best a political strategic reality, though hardly one I've promulgated. Oh no semantics! Why on earth would I correct your repeated misuse of language to try and berate me!?
lmao. Capital, Chapter 1: Commodities. Hmm. What does Marx spend his very first words on, at length? Surely it isn't a precise and careful semantic overview of the commodity as the central object of production for understanding capitalist relations. Marx was accutely focused on semantics, it's a large part of the point regarding how capitalism obscures its core relations - one must elucidate those core relations to understand and oppose the capitalist system. Capital is a critique of political economy, after all, and spends much time talking about how political economists of the time are wrong, in part from obscuring true relatiosns, calling something one thing when it's really another. For example, again from early in Chapter 1 of Capital: "Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power." Putting aside the fact that Marx is 100% concerned with semantics there, he is also correcting past and contemporary political economists' views on the labor theory of value.
Have you read anything Marx wrote? I have met a lot of DSA Marxists who kind of just fake it and you talk a lot like they do.
Oh deary me I'm getting the vapors
Yes, send NYPD to the synagogues. First they'll listen to him and it definitely wouldn't result in a federal crackdown. Again pure political idealism, daydreaming bullshit, immune to the actual prevailing conditions
In one sentence you acknowledge he's a single guy, and then in the next you demand he perform political feats that require the backing of a disciplined, fully developed workers' party. Do you believe the DSA is a fully developed workers' party? Meanwhile I'm going here in reality, pointing out he's normalizing socialist politics at the municipal level and that's an acceptable progression of our politics
Reducing a deep materialist and structural critique into a mere argument over vocabulary and definitions, Marx is not doing linguistic analysis; he is doing an ontological and material analysis of social forms. When he breaks down the commodity into use-value and exchange-value, he isn't saying, "People are using the wrong words for things." He is saying, "The material reality of capitalist production forces physical goods to take on these dual, contradictory social properties." That is real abstraction, not mere linguistics, and it's very liberal to confuse that reality
Also Marx in that paragraph is not "correcting past and contemporary political economists' views on the labor theory of value." He's not talking to economists at all, Adam Smith and David Ricardo his two biggest influences, already had that real abstraction locked down, he's talking to the layperson and building to an explanation of the concept of Socially Necessary Labor Time
Also by trivializing Marx's work as a battle of linguistics, you completely miss the fact he isn't simply saying bourgeois economists chose the wrong labels, but that the common analysis of capitalism in his day made two fundamental structural errors: Naturalizing Capitalism and Fetishizing Surface Appearances while ignoring the underlying dynamics of social production, that's not a question of semantic elucidation, that's a failure to perceive structural historical reality
You cannot linguistically "correct" commodity fetishism, because it is built into the objective structure of how a market economy operates. It requires a transformation of the material mode of production, not just some clearer dictionary
Hate to break it to you, but your argument is structurally rooted in liberal philosophy and epistemology, as if capitalism is simply a conceptual error or a giant linguistic misunderstanding. In Marxism, capitalism is a physical, violent rearrangement of human labor and resources, Marx wasn't trying to win a debate by redefining words; he was mapping the mechanics of an objective, physical system. Also your conception implies all a politician needs to do is say the right things, do the right things and perform symbolically in a "socialist" manner and everything else will fall into place, under a worldview like that no wonder you perceive anyone explaining prevailing conditions and structural barriers as "excuse making"
This time we start with my 12th sentence!
PS weren't you bailing? You're just shitposting in the other reply now.
????
He did send NYPD to the synagogue. You seem to not know this? You think it is a hypothetical and absurd? It seems you don't even know what I am referencing? Oh dear.
The irony.
These are not really in contradiction if you omit the part I didn't say: "requires". A disciplined party with sufficient structure and internal organization can make that happen, it is a force for this. Otherwise it is... just one guy, a bourgeois politician, and you're betting on him having that discipline all on his own (of course that one guy basically never does). Discussing your completely imaginary strategizing on Mamdani's part is pointless, discussing strategic retreat in the context of a disciplined party could have value. That is what I said. You have misrepresented me yet again, and I am not speaking in riddles. Just read carefully and speak honestly.
Obviously not lol.
Oh now it's socialist politics at the municipal level, not antizionism? I wonder how often you've rote repeated this. Certainly more variations on in this conversation than anything acknowledging what I have said in reply.
Next up: skipping over 30 of my sentences in between what you quoted! I wonder what intervened.
Oh I didn't reduce it, Marx did! It's called Chapter 1: Commodities. That's one of the sentences you have conveniently pretended did not exist. He broke it down so folks could systematically understand him and his quite subtle points critiquing political economy. He spent much effort on definitions, relations, and how to present them in a particular ordering. The idea that Marx was not heavy in semantics is truly amazing, and the fact that you're doubling down so hard on this is... well I don't know quite what the best description is. It's like embarrassing, but also revealing? And shameless? It's like you're daring every person who has read Marx and knows what words mean to disrespect you.
Semantics is not only "linguistic analysis". While it is about language, its focus is on meaning of lamguage, what is meant when saying something, what a term actually means (often multiple options of course). So when Marx says, "this is what a commodity is", he's focusing heavily on semantics - he's specifically not using the common understanding, but is constructing his own redundant lexicon so as to best explain his understanding, and in doing so relating the two. When he talks about what value is, he is focusing on semantics and most who are naive to Marx have a lot of trouble understanding value as a result, since the word has many other meanings that can easily distract. Every time Marx some comment like, "critics suppose [term] is [x], but is is actually [y]", he is making a semantic point, actually the same kind I have been making and that makes your belly ache like nothing else, apparently.
Ontology is virtually inseparable from semantics. And I am convinced you don't know what materialism is in this context. Regarding these ideas, in general, Marx was primarily focused on social relations, with those of economic production being primary. I was going to keep talking about materialism but I don't think I'm speaking to a particularly receptive audience.
Oh, is that all semantics is? When I tell you you're using a word wrong? This explains your behavior, but it is also incorrect.
Oh, no. Incorrect. Commodities are not just physical goods, though the examples usually are to help people understand. And the purpose of dividing up these various values is for... guess what... semantic clarity. Marx is divvying up the forms of "value" so their properties, hidden in plain sight, can be explained in isolation, and so that value, what he really cares about, can receive focus. Value was previously conflated when it came to these 3, you see, inasmuch as value was previously described. This has to be deconstructed for Marx to make his points.
Just word salad over and over again, recycling various words that puff up your chest or something. Marx's work there is specifically a critique of political economy, of pointing out errors in the overall approaches of classical political economists, beginning with a fundamental deconstruction of commodities that can be built upon later. It involves both semantics and she, abstraction, and more than that as well. You're painting yourself into a little dichotomous box that simply doesn't apply. I say "X has Y" and you chime in with "but X also has Z, lib!", thinking yourself clever.
Incorrect. He was in part referring to a criticism of the labor theory of value, one that says, "if more labor time means more value, why isn't the slow worker's commodity more valuable?" This hews close to Ricardo's definitions and certainly his critics'.
Repetitive
Incorrect. You keep saying "X has Z" as if it contradicts "X has Y" by default. This is such a basic error if thinking, I can only see it as a lie that I said: "Marx only wrote about semantics".
Second time you did that. I wonder if there will be more.
More word salad. The pieces kind of make some sense in isolation, but trying to make sense of them together might be impossible. Marx was of course talking about even more than that, but sure naturalizing capitalism was one aspect he critiqued and stated pretty plainly as a historical truth regarding modes of production. Regarding fetishization I'm not really sure what you're trying to refer to. In the part we are discussing it is a social property of commodities where capitalist production obscures origins and puts, in consideration, almost fantastical properties on the commodity itself. Both of these are highly semantic in their discourse, of course, especially the latter in how he describes the way in which properties and statements are made about commodities themselves as if they have them, rather than a relation being highly obscured.
I don't want to try and guess what you might mean by "structural historical reality". I think it's just words you think sound meaningful.
Oh dang now my whole argument about linguistically correcting commodity fetishism is out the window. Dang it! My life's work!
Oh wow fake nonexistent Chana says a lot of weird things in your pattern of speech, don't they? I wonder why my "argument" that you're referring to even is in this context.
Not entirely, as you're describing something in the vein of vulgar materialism. A common mistake for those who haven't read Marx. The dialectic is a bit more nuanced than that, exploring both objective and subjective in his analysis. Remember, Marx also critiques philosophers of only trying to understand the world, saying instead the point is to change it. Though this is now the third or fourth straw man about what I said regarding Marx and semantics. Exact same format, even.
Pure invention.
You know it's kinda incredible someone could construct such a tortured conception of Marxism by way of a simple category error. The issue isn't whether Marx used precise language (he obviously did); it's whether the core object of his critique is semantic
You suppose when Marx says something like, "Critics suppose [term] is [x], but it is actually [y]," he is making a semantic point about what a term means, he's not, you're conflating scientific correction with linguistic definition; that's a category error
When he corrects people on "value," he isn't saying, "Let's agree to define this word differently." He is saying, "You think value is a natural property of an object (like its weight), but I am proving to you that it is actually a hidden social relationship forced onto that object by the mechanics of capitalist exchange." That is a correction of scientific fact, not vocabulary
You also confuse the presentation with the inquiry, another logical trap, the irony is Marx actually addressed this exact point in the Postface to the Second Edition of Capital. He distinguishes between his mode of inquiry (Forschungsmethode) and his mode of presentation (Darstellungsmethode), the raw, chaotic, empirical reality of industrial England structured using a highly ordered, abstract, almost purely logical progression of definitions
So yes, he uses a "lexicon-like" presentation because he is trying to peel back layers of a deeply confusing system. But the logic driving Chapter 1 is not the logic of language; it is the logic of the value-form as it actually evolved historically. Marx didn't invent the concept that abstract labor creates value; the historical development of the market economy invented it, and Marx is just mapping it
Also Marx did not create his lexicon out of whole cloth; it wasn't a personal or insular, his concepts: use-value, exchange-value, money, commodities, were the standard terms of classical political economy used by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Jean-Baptiste Say. Marx's genius was not that he invented a new vocabulary, but that he took the existing vocabulary of bourgeois economics and showed that its internal logic logically led to crisis and exploitation, he didn't invent "surplus value" as a cool new word; he uncovered the actual, uncompensated hours of human sweat that bourgeois economists were hiding behind the word "profit."
Also your assertion that "Ontology is virtually inseparable from semantics." while the new vogue in certain branches of modern linguistic philosophy completely misses the entire point of his materialist inversion of Hegel
For Marx, social ontology (what exists) exists through physical human practice, completely independent of whether we have the language to describe it
A 19th-century child factory worker in Manchester didn't need to understand the "semantics" of surplus value, nor did the factory owner. The owner didn't have to read Marx to exploit the child; the objective, material pressures of market competition forced him to do it. The social relation happens in the physical world first. Language just plays catch-up
Capitalism's distortions are real illusions generated by the material act of exchange, but that doesn't mean you overthrow the structural laws of capitalism through semantics; it will continue to function smoothly until the material relations of production are physically overturned
Fun fact: most category errors are... semantic. Including many of those discussed by Marx.
I'm thinking your approach to disagreement is to just be unpleasant and act in bad faith until the other person decides it's not worth their time. And in defense, rely on obscurantism and straw men. Wouldn't want to reply to what the other person is actually saying, eh? This most recent reply doesn't directly address anything I said!
There's something you learn over time when you eventually become knowledgeable in one or more topics. Those who are naive, insecure, or simply unaware rely on obscurantist language. They love to use jargon in place of clear statements, directly as a substitute, to try and give the appearance of understanding, the appearance of belonging among the group they to become a peer in. Those who are secure, knowledgeable, comfortable in the topic? Yes they can use the jargon, but they try to do so for clarity, and do not rely on it to obscure.
Your comments consistently demonstrate the former, not the latter. The point is not clarity, but to be pedantic. Perhaps to simply avoid discussing what is actually at hand? You do seem to be averse to a direct conversation, to addressing what I actually say. Not just ignoring 90% of what I say, but then additionally taking the time to invent and respond to things I didn't. This quoted bit has both properties.
Precision in language: not a point I have discussed outside of you pretending at knowledge and constantly misusing socialist (and other) terminology.
Whether the core object of his critique is semantic: nah just quote me. What did I actually say about Marx and semantics? You are clearly averse to what I actually said, as it isn't that!
See you don't even know what semantics is! In an example of pure irony, Marx often uses semantic points to actually point out category errors, that is literally what commodity fetishism describes. One of the things we're talking about. The commodities themselves do not truly have the properties with which they are allegedly imbued. Marx points this out: what does it mean when a commodity is ascribed those properties? Does it really have them? Can a commodity itself have them? Generally, no! Yet he critiqued political economy for doing so, for saying, say, that a commodity actually possesses value, obscuring the more accurate understanding that value is a "crystallization" of labor in production.
But why am I explaining this? You obviously don't care. You're belaboring the absurdly obvious point that Marx focused quite a bit on semantics to make his points, including the very first chapter of Capital. It's not a point even worth discussing, it's like you're trying to say the sun is purple and those who disagree are liberals. Is it a good use of time to tell that person what purple is and what a spectrograph might say?
Now semantics is vocabulary...
"You say value is X, but it's actually Y" and you struggle and still think Marx isn't talking semantics.
Oh do you want to have this discussion auf Deutsch to be extra pedantic? Vielleicht koennen wir. Oder nicht. Schade.
More word salad. Nothing to be found here, it's not even connected to the premise you just presented. Forschung and Darstellung are not rejections of semantics in any way. You seem... deeply confused.
It is literally about defining the commodity, semantically splitting "value" to do so, and in the context of contemporary political economists' understandings, especially how those semantic category errors obscure the true relations. Can you read the title of Chapter 1 for me out loud? I wonder what Marx had to say about Ricardo and Destutt. Another way to tell newbies: they never read the footnotes.
Tedious, irrelevant.
Tedious, irrelevant, though also not really correct. Marx did forward new meaning and language in some of those examples.
More word salad. Now semantics is just inventing new vocabulary! Now we're discussing Marx's genius! Wouldn't want to discuss what I've actually said huh? Keep talking about literally everything else.
Oh you did eventually get around to mentioning something I actually said. Good job. Pat on the back.
I assume this was meant to be a complete sentence and thought but ended up as... whatever this is. Not parseable.
Cool story what does it have to do with what I said?
Look at how long it takes you to say simple things. How many words, how things must be injected for no purpose other than to give the trappings of familiarity.
Cool Marx described phenomena, description didn't create the phenomena. Wow. Oh amazing. I can't believe it. Blowing my mind here. Next you're going to tell me Newton didn't invent gravity. Give me time to recover first, though. And try to keep that revelation to fewer than 4 paragraphs.
A straw man addressed in my previous comment. Just shameless behavior.
I haven't misrepresented you at all. As I explained, and as you are ignoring yet again, your focus on giving credit to bourgeois politicians and reversing the causative roles is incorrect. It is a wrong political understanding. In addition to them being opportunist, your line of thought is opportunist. I pointed out that if anyone is to be given credit for normalizing antizionism, it is the Palestinian resistance, and not where you have chosen to place that focus in this conversation.
Now it's structural utility. Just words. Do they mean anything?
Is Mamdani antizionist if his orientation towards it is opportunist? What of the NYC DSA liberals that consistently opposed it right up until they could cynically used it? What is the value of them having "POWER", and what is this so-called "POWER" when it's used to send cops to defend Zionist stolen land sales? There is an inconsistency between the material reality and this vague optimistic electoralist posting. Mamdani is not even some vanguard of a socialist party to whom he's beholden, he's literally a bourgeois politician who owes nothing to anyone, you might as well be defending any random liberal that says "I'm against the genocide". But also speaking in terms as if he's part of us, or some grander strategy, or the "movement", whatever that is.
I'm trying to understand your circuitous language and vague references. This is what I was trying to understand: "The bulk of Americans who didn't care when university students were brutalized by zionist hate mobs and police, but will now vote for politicians who utilize anti-zionism as a persuasive campaign strategy." So again it's just that weird proximity of language thing, where you try to imply that two or three things are directly related (otherwise there is no meaning at all): that his campaign won, that it had antizionist messaging, and that his voters didn't care about state violence against pro-Palestine protesters. This is quite the claim if we are to believe they are related to one another. Tell me how they are related, or if not, explain why you implied they were.
Uh no? That doesn't follow. And I've said repeatedly that liberal and socdem bourgeois politicians will gladly make use of, and coopt, various movements once they are already popular enough. I think it's kind of obvious that they try to use them to further their careers, including election prospects. Isn't it obvious?
For maybe the 6th or 7th time, you are completey backwards in your attribution of cause and effect regarding the popularization of antizionism in the US. You seem to think the bourgeois politicians using it are pushing it forward rather than tailing it, despite using the term tailing. Is it leadership pushing forward "the movement" or is it opporutnist tailing? Because I know it's the latter but you seem very confused.
Pure invention on your part. Please retract or demonstrate your claim on this.
The Palestinian resistance is not a spontaneous, vibes-based movement. It seems you don't even know the topic we are discussing. Like... at all?
I think it's just a soft attempt at insult. It doesn't make any sense and required putting quite a few words in my mouth.
And Mamdani is the "leadership" you're otherwise referring to, so therefore you are making that exact comparison. And it is invalid, for the reasons I've already stated regarding opportunist bourgeois politicians vs. leaders beholen to an organization. This is literally opportunist logic, like old-school opportunist nonsense from the 1910s.
I strongly disagree that the point has been made. You've been vague and primarily leveraged jargon and comparisons rather than actually clearly stating what is actually happening, concretely. and how the critiques you are responding to are wrong. I make a specific criticism, you retreat to vague "but leadership is something, right??? Remember Lenin?" posts.
I don't hate Mamdani, I barely even think about him. I do take issue with false uses of Marxist language and thinking to defend him doing opportunist things. As if it's smart and strategic to backtrack, as if you are of his side, rather than literally exactly what you would expect from a self-serving opportunism masquerading as part of any "movement" you and I would share. Please try to do better in addressing what I actually say instead of inventing positions on my part.
I certainly don't feel like anyone is swinging an axe at my political foundations, lmao. This is like virtually every conversation I have ever had with a DSA electoralist. They kind of just make things up as they go. At the moment I'm just being somewhat entertained given the string of comments that are like 50% straw men and deflections. I don't even know what political foundations you'd be swinging an axe at. Maybe you'd like to tell me what you think they are? Provide quotes, please, since your claims about me rarely match what I've said.
We are discussing the normalization of antizionism, implicitly primarily in the United States (technically we did not actually restrict our statements to the US, but sure whatever). Regarding the normalization of antizionism, the Palestinian resistance has had inifnitely more impact than Zohran Mamdani and DSA electoralists. The latter are trailing, or hey let's rhyme, tailing existing popularity and normalization. So where did the latter come from? Certainly not the folks you're placing emphasis on.
It came from months and months of seeing genocidal violence on social media.
Those publications came from Palestine, from the resistance, from people who would get videos smuggled out or with difficult to access networks, peple taking real personal risks to do this. They became particularly popular on TikTok, where imperialists realized they didn't have as much control as they usually have over propaganda narratives (and have since taken material action, as we know). The resistance provided the narratives that opportunists now half-quote, the evidence, the faces to it, and there were organized campaigns to hold clear lines on these topics, to use media strategies by which to spread understanding, to organize events that mobilized, educated, enjoined people into the work. The student protests on campuses drew from and built on this momentum, and although not particularly well organized or strategic, were at least concrete, demanding defunding of zionist investments. Labor became involved, both through those protests and before, through work in UFCW, in UAW, with the extremely active Starbucks workers, amplifying the messaging and enjoining it in class struggle work. And of course socialist and adjascent groups did the bulk of on the ground organizing.
Through this extended process of observing genocide, of hearing the correct antizionist narratives repeated over and over again, of participating in of seeing the responses to those working against genocide, the normalization of antizionism in the US gained steam, the process far from complete.
Note that absolutely none of that was, "a bourgeous opportunist politician said Free Palestine a year and a half later". That is an outcome of the normalization far more than any kind of cause. This is maybe the 7th, 8th time I've stated this? You have never acknowledged this point.
I will half to split my reply in 2.
You're just yapping in the rest of your response and not addressing anything I said, so I'll focus on the one actual worthwhile question in your essay
Because one flows from the other, brutalized protests created the heat and energy (grassroots organizers, election workers, student testimonials, future campaign door knockers, and an already primed voter base) a political election campaign harnesses that energy and rudimentary organization to bridge the gap between state and grassroots, sanitizing anti-Zionism for dumb, apathetic cracker Americans who didn't care college students got beat, and harnessing the political energy of that movement to win an election, which puts your movement into proximity to state power, which minimizes the risk of further brutalized protests. Materialist political evolution originating with Palestinian resistance and ending in anti-Zionists holding state power in the heart of empire
You can call Mandani an opportunist all you like, but he's not going to run the Adam's playbook if college protests ever reignite
AND HERE YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST the further development of that process. Palestinian resistance members cannot be elected in the United States; socdems like Mamdani who FURTHER normalize anti-Zionism, can. Hence why those socdems have a structural utility in advancing anti-zionism IN THE UNITED STATES
All of a sudden you remember the concepts of process and progress
I responded to your previous comment point-by-point and directly. I quoted every single thing you wrote and responded directly. The only possible exceptions came in a later comment where I decided to not help you derail by not answering for claims I haven't made.
It's not my fault if you wish to avoid this discussion. Please just be direct and honest.
Ah, the DSA electoralism self-promoting speech pattern.
So, you are saying that those 3 things are directly related? That there could have been action words connecting them to make your point clear and direct? I will read this response in those terms as best I can, looking for those action words.
The brutalized protests "created heat and energy", i.e. on the ground organizing, such as it was, combined with the reaction and media/social media coverage, produced a following reaction of further organizing. Moving directly to election workers, future campaign door knockers, and "already primed voter base" is quite the reach and reads as that DSA electoralism speech pattern I mentioned. Perhaps in retrospect you can assign the latter to the former to some degree, that those who were agitated by the student protests are among the ranks of those who could be activated to do electoral campaign work for Mamdani in particular. Is that what you are trying to say? I think it is trivial and obvious that there were people agitated on Palestine who would later volunteer for the campaign. Is that what we are discussing?
"a political election campaign harnesses that energy and rudimentary organization to bridge the gap between state and grassroots" Wrong. A political election campaign like this harnesses the result of agitation, yes, but it is for bridging the gap between a political candidate and an elected position. The outcome, e.g. vaguely posting about "the state", is not a direct consequence. Is it a bridge? How far does that metaphor go? Are the grassroots now in control of the office? What happens when the socdem backtracks and allies with fascists? I mean we can see right now: unprincipled defenses. It is its own formation with distinct dynamics, it is not a bridge from grassroots to the state, from organization to policy, it is an expression of self-interested electoralism by NYC DSA libs merely couched in those terms, and the moment the reality of that bridge is tested it is subsumed to "the elected". This is a one-way street and it is other interests, particularly capital, that hold most of the cards, with no particular structure to counteract them. If we were discussing a disciplined organization of which Mamdani si merely a representative, we could have a different discussion about bourgeois state power and its manifestations when socialists try to enter it, but we aren't even there.
"sanitizing anti-Zionism for dumb, apathetic cracker Americans who didn't care college students got beat" Yes, sanitizing an already-popular position resulting from a separate primary social movement. What it means to do it "for" apathetic whites is implied to be a good or smart thing? It's just as easily a bad thing. Sanitizing it also strips it of its potential to agitate, it redirects into a political campaign that has no need to follow through and softens it. This is the long-standing function of liberal cooption.
"and harnessing the political energy of that movement to win an election, which puts your movement into proximity to state power, which minimizes the risk of further brutalized protests." oh I didn't think this would get so circular and repetitive, now I barely know what you're talking about again. Sanitizing antizionism is given direct partial credit here for winning the election? Sanitizing it is to make it more palatable, you have its role opposite the reality. The adoption of antizionism is a cynical move to "harness" existing antizionist agitation, but those who are so agitated use the language of antizionism and its commitments, which is considered alienating to potential voters, so it is sanitized. The purpose and function of sanitized antizionism is not to further antizionism, it is to exploit and soften it. The "payoff" is theoretical or simply electoralist self-serving, which is why you are vague about it and are avoiding the various material defenses of Zionism by Mamdani. The other partial credit for winning the election is given to simply "harnessing" those were were already agitated in favor of Palestine, which is just another way of restating that the Mamdani campaign used antizionism as a way to build itself up, to use that topic and agitation to its own advantage. We certainly don't disagree about that, but you seem to think it is worth mentioning in such glowing terms and an expression of power for antizionism and the "movement" rather than simply a cynical cooption in the interests of the bourgeois politician and his hangers-on. Finally, minimizes the risk of further brutalized protests? Now you're giving credit for things that haven't happened even as Mamdani has faltered in his commitments. In a thread about how he's faltering in his commitments. If Mamdani fails on student protests in the future, will you be here to explain his reasoning and why not taking on Columbia et al makes tons of sense even though you think he could do it if he wanted to?
Materialist political evolution... I'm not sure how to even discuss that. Was it materialist? I think it's just a narrative of topics that relate to one another, but it's not much of an analysis, and not particularly materialist. It still just feels like jargon is being thrown around to sound socialist. A materialist analysis would need to discuss more brass tacks, things like how the superstructure was impacted by the base in this situation. The Palestinian resistance would again return to our focus, because their direct military opposition placed the entity in desperate conditions, transforming the false narrative of reluctant impervious domineers to the true narrative of precarious genocidal settlers. The exodus of Zionists from Israel, the economic impacts, the contradictions in needing to then send yet more aid to Israel...
Anyways, "anti-Zionists holding state power" again has no such meaning if their antizionism is opportunist. Again. Is this the third or fourth time I've said this?
I mean they don't need to be identical to have the same impact. Is Tisch still going to be there? Is she going to send the cops? Will you be the Mamdani explainer if the students are beaten by the cops? He can't just take them on, right?
What did I argue against, specifically? Quote me.
Now it's "structural utility" again, whatever that vague nonsense means. And again you refer to Mamdani as normalizing antizionism, which appears to mean that he is elected and can say some antizionist things? Agian back to the Dem cooption playbook, are we meant to make excuses for Obama because he "evolved" on gay marriage? We are meant to give him this much credit? Uh-oh, I mentioned credit again! I am again simply describing your tendency to give it to Mamdani, unasked, in defense of opportunism.
I have not said anything in contradiction of these concepts or neglected them. You're just saying things again. Things that maybe sound good to you? They aren't principled or in alignment with what has been said.
You knowingly misrepresented my argument in the first sentence of your last comment; I'm not bothering with your repetitive semantics and liberal obfuscation of basic socio-political developments that are prerequisites for state power
No I didn't? And this is rich given the amount of highly inventive accusations you've leveled.
I am repetitive in response to you ignoring what I say and repeating yourself, lol. Such as with this comment. Did I respond to the semantics point? yes I did. Are you now repeating it and ignoring what I said? You betcha!
But if you want to bail, go right ahead. I am quite aware that you're just faking this stuff. Throw out some more Marxist-sounding words!