One year after Hitler, Stalin and Otto Bauer were still hoping to come to terms with Fascism. Being what they were it is clear that before they had had actual experience of Hitler, the idea of the German workers fighting Fascism would not have crossed their minds. “After Hitler, our turn,” is the concentrated expression of bureaucratic inertia, cowardice, ignorance and short-sightedness, Stalin could not say openly what he meant. He had to dress it up in revolutionary words, to promise the deluded German workers that the revolution would come after Hitler had come to power.
We already tried accelerationism in the 1920s, genius.
It’s ironic that you accuse me of accelerationism, while you argue for a vote blue no matter who. Do you even know what accelerationism means? I do not advocate for democrats to lose the election, i advocate in having my votes be conditional to the furtherance of interests. The Democratic Party is the agent here, they are the ones who use accelerationist policy in an attempt get people to vote against their best interests, vote blue no matter who has always been a demand to silence progressive voices to meet right wing ‘centrist’ ‘half way’. My stance literally opposes democrat parties current accelerationism.
Again you make assumptions about me you have no right to. I voted Harris under great duress. At the time i figured that the harm would get worse under her but maybe there would be enough time to get democrats in line.
It was not the loss of the election that had me see different. It was what the democrats did afterward that has shown me exactly what needs to be done.
Harm mitigation only works as a concept with a plan to stop the harm, or if there is no other choice. And that is not the case. You and yours said that the election was not the time to deal with the reckoning the Democratic Party earned? Turns out that time has passed. The next best time is right now.
So you’re saying you want to pressure the democrats into being a good party by making them lose, because you saw what a bad party they were when they lost?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch12.htm
We already tried accelerationism in the 1920s, genius.
It’s ironic that you accuse me of accelerationism, while you argue for a vote blue no matter who. Do you even know what accelerationism means? I do not advocate for democrats to lose the election, i advocate in having my votes be conditional to the furtherance of interests. The Democratic Party is the agent here, they are the ones who use accelerationist policy in an attempt get people to vote against their best interests, vote blue no matter who has always been a demand to silence progressive voices to meet right wing ‘centrist’ ‘half way’. My stance literally opposes democrat parties current accelerationism.
Not in opposite land. Have fun voting no preference on genocide, enabler.
A democrat president was literally enabling genocide! What the fuck are you talking about?!
You didn’t vote one way or the other. You voted no preference. You told the government you don’t have an opinion on how much genocide you want.
Again you make assumptions about me you have no right to. I voted Harris under great duress. At the time i figured that the harm would get worse under her but maybe there would be enough time to get democrats in line.
It was not the loss of the election that had me see different. It was what the democrats did afterward that has shown me exactly what needs to be done.
Harm mitigation only works as a concept with a plan to stop the harm, or if there is no other choice. And that is not the case. You and yours said that the election was not the time to deal with the reckoning the Democratic Party earned? Turns out that time has passed. The next best time is right now.
So you’re saying you want to pressure the democrats into being a good party by making them lose, because you saw what a bad party they were when they lost?
5/7 perfect plan