Endorsement of Stein and Butch Ware comes as Muslims channel anger over US support for Israel into supporting third parties

The Abandon Harris movement that sprouted late last year out of the widespread outrage over the Biden-Harris administration’s support for the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza has officially endorsed the Green Party’s Jill Stein for US president.

The endorsement is the first of its kind for Stein and the Green Party, with the Abandon Harris campaign being the first major Muslim-led political group to endorse her campaign this election cycle. Last month, a smaller group, the Muslim American Public Affairs Council NC, also endorsed Stein.

“We are not choosing between a greater evil and a lesser evil. We are confronting two destructive forces: one currently overseeing a genocide and another equally committed to continuing it. Both are determined to see it through,” the Abandon Harris campaign said in a statement released on Monday.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    41·
    3 months ago

    He was dismissed by the DNC proper before he even declared his candidacy. The fact that they allowed him to A) Run as a Democrat, and B) Stand on the debate stage, means that something big is happening and they saw that if they didn’t, they would have an internal revolt on their hands.

    I read it more as Bernie never standing a risk to the system, he’s a Social Democrat at most.

    They are the future of the party. It’s no longer the Clinton/Blue Dog/Third Way that are the future of the party. It’s The Squad and SocDems and eventually full-throated Socialists. Because the culture is changing in America. Step by step

    The establishment Dems have the squad in a chokehold, they have treated Rashida Tlaib like garbage, and this is just for SocDems! It will never become a party for Socialism.

    I’ve always contended that Capitalism isn’t exactly in decay, but rather just reverting back to the Feudalism from which it stemmed, which was the plan all along. When Feudalism was “in decay” in the early 1800’s, both Socialism and Capitalism rose in popularity. Capitalism won out because of a number of factors, but it is my contention that a few of the major factors included:

    This isn’t accurate. Socialism never took a foothold until the 1900s, pre-Marx there were minor Utopian projects but that’s it. Capitalism isn’t reverting to feudalism, it’s advancing towards Socialism as monopolist syndicates are intricately related with one another, making themselves ripe for central planning once the proletariat siezes them. Meanwhile, competition is going away and disparity is rising. Read Marx, it’ll do you good.

    The concept of true democracy was completely foreign to those generations. Humanity hadn’t had actual democracy since the Greeks (and even then, only marginally). We’d lived under Feudalism for centuries until the revolutions of the 1700’s/1800’s. People weren’t used to not having a hierarchy. It was a foreign concept to be able to have an equal say in how the world was organized and run. Unthinkable, for those generations.

    Democracy wasn’t “discovered,” it was a natural evolution upon technological advancement. Read Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” Organizational structures aren’t random ideas but come into existence to support the Mode of Production.

    The socialists and anarchists used terrorism and violence to try to influence the masses, which always has the opposite of the desired effect. Nobody likes a bully (unless it’s “their” bully). Rule by fear does not work, long-term.

    This is just generally wrong. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

    The Capitalists, on the other hand, offered the illusion of self-determination, the illusion of freedom of choice. Capitalists didn’t have to bomb people to get them to join their cause. They just had to pay them. They did have the challenge, however, to organize the new system so that the serfs (workers) could only survive by working for the lords (the capitalists), just as they did under feudalism. Give the serfs the illusion of freedom by allowing them the “freedom” to choose a different master who may afford them some marginally better conditions, or the “opportunity” to become a master themselves by going into debt to the king (the rich capitalists/banking institutions), and feed them the hope that eventually they could pay off that debt if they were “successful” at exploiting other serfs and earning a profit off their “cheap” labor.

    This is a very “ideas focused” view of history, rather than a materialist focus. The aforementioned text on Marxism and the mythical “worker’s paradise” is a perfect into to Historical Materialism.

    Obviously, the Feudal Aristocracy saw that the Capitalists were “their kind of people” and therefore the money and the power won out for Capitalism. Socialists could have used that same playbook, but we were blinded by our own passion and compassion for our fellow human beings

    The Capitalists overpowered the Feudal Aristocracy with their vastly superior productive mechanisms. It wasn’t about ideas but literal structures.

    I firmly believe that had humanity not been so resigned to hierarchy in the first place, more and longer lasting revolutions and democracies would have sprung up even in the face of that power.

    Hierarchy is fine, organization almost requires it, certainly at scale.

    The failure of the AES experiments, in my opinion, is that they have emulated the tactics of the feudalists, using violence and establishing their own authoritarian hierarchy, in order to give the people, who weren’t used to democracy in the first place, something familiar. The contradiction between our socialist ideals and the establishment of a hierarchy used to force those ideals down the throats of people who aren’t culturally prepared for the changes (and therefore who are antagonistic to the changes, as all humans are to all changes), irreparably cracks and weakens the system, necessitating more and more force to maintain itself. Add to that the outside influences working at every moment to thwart the socialist efforts, and the internal mismanagement and cults-of-personality that lead to policies that created famines, and you can see why it all failed. Violence is never a long-term solution.

    You are analyzing AES as an idealist, not a materialist. Socialism isn’t good because it’s morally superior, but because production requires it if we are to continue to advance technologically.

    Now that we have had a century or so of cultural changes such that democracy is the expected “norm” I believe that a move further to the left is not only inevitable, but achievable through nonviolent means. Through further cultural shifts, we could change the system over time. This generation is ready. The boomers were not. Gen-X was open to the idea. Millennials are socialists, by and large. Gen-Z are fucking communists and ready to fucking go.

    Reform cannot work, this is a solved problem. The State and Revolution is a good text going over why.

    My opinion is that violent revolutions are short-lived and generally have resulted in much worse outcomes than the conditions they were initially revolting from. For instance, look at the French Revolutions, or the American Revolution. The Russian revolutions are another example. The Korean, Vietnamese, and Cuban revolutions were all thwarted by the forces that arose from the previously mentioned violent revolutions.

    This is absurd. The Russian, Cuban, Korean, Vietnamese, French, and American revolutions drastically improved on previous conditions, they were not “thwarted.” Look up metrics like life expectancy and democratization, life expectancy doubled in the USSR and multiplied by 1.5 in Cuba post-revolution. This is a whitewashing of just how monstrous previous regimes before revolution was.

    If we truly believe in the general purposes of our cause (to make life better for everyone), then we have to look for a solution that will last millennia. That will only come from cultural change, and lasting cultural change is one in which the majority of the people are culturally inclined to not be fucking dicks to each other, and that comes from a lack of scarcity. Capitalism has given us that lack of scarcity. And now it’s time to use it to our social advantage.

    Not entirely wrong in analysis of material conditions, but putting the emphasis on culture and not the Mode of Production is misguided.

    The left needs to stop living in the past. Yes, learn some lessons from those dead men, but take a look at the current generations and plan for the future. We’re not going back to the glory days of socialist uprisings and guillotines. We just aren’t. Face that reality. Embrace the hope for the future

    Your problem is that you are ignoring the lessons of the past. Reform cannot work. AES is by no means perfect, but you are throwing out all of the advancements in theory and practice over time and embracing Utopianism and Idealism, which were dominant pre-Marx and subsequently disproven.

    Please read the article on the “Worker’s Paradise,” it’s 20 minutes, if nothing else. Blackshirts and Reds will also be eye-opening for you, as should State and Revolution, but those are full books.

    • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Hey there! I read through Worker’s Paradise and have some thoughts I’d like to discuss if you have the time:

      It is not merely voting that is necessary for workers to truly be in charge in production. It does not matter how many votes are cast if the infrastructure simply does not exist to transform those inputs into outputs. If there is no infrastructure for actually developing the economy, all these votes will never lead to the democratic will of the voter actually being expressed.

      Utopians believe that the problem is always lack of direct democracy. More and more direct democracy is always their solution. More and more voting. Voting is insufficient here. Without the tools to actually carry out economic plans, these votes will be for naught. The economy will never reflect the will of the workers.

      The author does not elaborate on the reasoning for their assertion that voting will never bring into manifestation the will of the workers, except to say:

      It had grown to the largest economy in the world while still largely planning everything by hand, and the planning technology and infrastructure was lagging far behind.

      You can’t solve this problem by just having “more democracy”. It’s a problem of information. The economy was too enormous and complex to actually gather all that information and then respond to consumer demand. The USSR had tons of places for workers to have democratic input, but it did not matter. As its clunky system aged, it continually lacked the ability to efficiently transform any sort of democratic input into economic output.

      The Soviet Union lacked the communication infrastructure to be able to allow democracy to actually be able to control the entirety of the huge system. Which is true, for the Soviet Union. At that time.

      We have the technology today. We have the computers. We have the AI which can quickly and easily determine the most efficient options for our democratic processes to choose from.

      Lenin instead encouraged encouraging market development in order to lay the foundations for socialized production.

      socialism requires economic planning, economic planning requires big industry, and big industry can only be developed through market competition.

      Why do they think big industry can ONLY be developed through market competition? What is the reasoning behind that? (Aside from what they have seen happen in the past, for older generations of people with very different material conditions to our own today?)

      The transformation of capitalism into socialism must necessarily be a gradual process inline with gradual economic development, and complete abolition of private property would only be possible with incredibly, incredibly high levels of economic development.

      This is true. So why are you all so against voting in the United States’ two-party system, when that very voting will continue to allow incredibly high levels of economic development and the GRADUAL socialization of industry and society?

      Economic democracy implies that the will of the workers is directing, planning, the economy. Economic planning inherently requires large-scale infrastructure. Large-scale infrastructure cannot be decreed into existence, but can only come into existence efficiently through market mechanisms.

      The market has created that large-scale infrastructure. Let’s use it to make the world better.

      Marxists should drop the obsession of implementing some “workers’ utopia”.

      Then what is it all for? Why do anything if it doesn’t lead to an eventual utopia where everyone has their needs met and we can just hang out in parks and play games all day? Isn’t that what the whole point of this thing is?? Is that NOT what we are striving for?

      people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.

      Marx himself wanted that utopia. We have the means of achieving it today, because, as the author says, we allowed the market to create that large-scale infrastructure. The process worked. We’re here now, and now we inherently deserve to be able to have a say in what we do with it. Because we’re sentient beings. We deserve to have control over our own lives.

      This article is merely a defense of capitalism (and the way that China has structured itself in particular). There’s logic behind it, of course, and that’s clearly laid out. But it’s based on presuppositions. It’s based on the idea that this is the ONLY way to achieve that utopia.

      In fact, the article itself basically says “resign yourself to the idea of never having control over your life, because you’re never going to create a utopia, so you might as well just be content being a cog in the wheel of the system and be thankful that we who are in control continue to allow you to live” which is no better than the slavery system that (I thought) we (and marx) are trying to get society away from!

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        3·
        2 months ago

        The author does not elaborate on the reasoning for their assertion that voting will never bring into manifestation the will of the workers, except to say:

        This is because Reform or Revolution is a “solved question” elsewhere. In a 20 minute article, there’s not much room to go over everything.

        The Soviet Union lacked the communication infrastructure to be able to allow democracy to actually be able to control the entirety of the huge system. Which is true, for the Soviet Union. At that time.

        We have the technology today. We have the computers. We have the AI which can quickly and easily determine the most efficient options for our democratic processes to choose from.

        Yes, that’s why as the PRC continues to develop and socialize, it becomes more capable of democratization. The point isn’t that the USSR wasn’t democratic. It was, just not a fantasy.

        Why do they think big industry can ONLY be developed through market competition? What is the reasoning behind that? (Aside from what they have seen happen in the past, for older generations of people with very different material conditions to our own today?)

        Markets are efficient at centralization. It isn’t only possible via markets, it just comes with slower growth and recessions. More on that in Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

        This is true. So why are you all so against voting in the United States’ two-party system, when that very voting will continue to allow incredibly high levels of economic development and the GRADUAL socialization of industry and society?

        Because the bourgeois state cannot simply be reformed. The State and Revolution is the clearest overview of why.

        The market has created that large-scale infrastructure. Let’s use it to make the world better.

        Yes, let’s overthrow the bourgeoisie so this can happen! Exactly.

        Then what is it all for? Why do anything if it doesn’t lead to an eventual utopia where everyone has their needs met and we can just hang out in parks and play games all day? Isn’t that what the whole point of this thing is?? Is that NOT what we are striving for?

        The point is to continue advancing, not to come up with an idea and force it into reality. That’s the difference between Utopian and Scientific Socialism. We still want all of what you said.

        Marx himself wanted that utopia. We have the means of achieving it today, because, as the author says, we allowed the market to create that large-scale infrastructure. The process worked. We’re here now, and now we inherently deserve to be able to have a say in what we do with it. Because we’re sentient beings. We deserve to have control over our own lives.

        Marx was anti-utopian. You are correct in saying we can socialize now, but haven’t analyzed the means.

        his article is merely a defense of capitalism (and the way that China has structured itself in particular). There’s logic behind it, of course, and that’s clearly laid out. But it’s based on presuppositions. It’s based on the idea that this is the ONLY way to achieve that utopia.

        It’s a defense of socialist markets as a means of stabilizing growth towards Communism (not utopia).

        In fact, the article itself basically says “resign yourself to the idea of never having control over your life, because you’re never going to create a utopia, so you might as well just be content being a cog in the wheel of the system and be thankful that we who are in control continue to allow you to live” which is no better than the slavery system that (I thought) we (and marx) are trying to get society away from!

        No, it says building Communism takes time even after siezing the means of production. Check out the other texts I linked.

        • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Are there any modern texts that aren’t written by people who lived in completely different circumstances with completely different technology, and who aren’t currently dead?

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            2·
            2 months ago

            I specifically linked sources that remain true to this day, where the circumstances haven’t affected their analysis, and the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism was written in 2020.

            • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              Thanks. I’ll read that one then. I’ve read parts of State and Revolution but never the whole thing in one sitting.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                2·
                2 months ago

                It’s a good article, but it specifically deals with markets centralizing and making themselves ripe for central planning under a DotP, it won’t answer the questions of Reform or Revolution like State and Rev and Reform or Revolution do. Their analysis is still good to this day, the bits of analysis that weren’t as good I obviously didn’t link (like Mao trying to socialize too early, which was wrong).

                • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  So, in reading Socialism Developed China, I came across this paragraph:

                  China, as we already established, was not a developed market economy after Mao came to power. In fact, neither was Russia when the Bolsheviks came to power. This was a problem which Lenin had recognized and sought to find a solution to. The solution he proposed was his New Economic Policy. This would be a brief “state-capitalist” transition period in order to develop the economy enough in order for the transition to socialism to be possible.

                  Given that, why wouldn’t American leftists (if they existed) want to participate in electoral politics that can transition us to socialism? Since we are already a developed market economy, it should be just a matter of re-alignment of the cultural priorities in order to produce that change.

                  The path to socialism is not just through violent revolution.

                  Yet American leftists seem to be either nihilistic and cynical, or hell-bent on violent revolution being the only way to socialism.

                  A violent revolution in America would inevitably fail without buy-in from the public at large.

                  Buy-in from the public at large will only come through education and indoctrination and by changing minds. But American leftists seem to want to isolate themselves into exclusive online enclaves like Hexbear and Lemmygrad and reddit’s “socialist” subreddits, who ban anyone who wants or needs to learn.

                  Why are leftists so anti-evangelical (for lack of a better term)? Why don’t leftists want to recruit?

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    3·
                    2 months ago

                    Given that, why wouldn’t American leftists (if they existed) want to participate in electoral politics that can transition us to socialism? Since we are already a developed market economy, it should be just a matter of re-alignment of the cultural priorities in order to produce that change.

                    Because the bourgeoisie have no interest in transitioning to Socialism, they can only lose. The only way to wrest power from them is revolution. It isn’t as simple as “re-aligning cultural priorities,” the electoral system is a reflection of the interests of the bourgoeisie as they influence through donations.

                    The path to socialism is not just through violent revolution.

                    It is, sadly.

                    Yet American leftists seem to be either nihilistic and cynical, or hell-bent on violent revolution being the only way to socialism.

                    Correct.

                    A violent revolution in America would inevitably fail without buy-in from the public at large.

                    Correct.

                    Buy-in from the public at large will only come through education and indoctrination and by changing minds. But American leftists seem to want to isolate themselves into exclusive online enclaves like Hexbear and Lemmygrad and reddit’s “socialist” subreddits, who ban anyone who wants or needs to learn.

                    This is wrong. Ideas change with material conditions, as disparity rises leftism rises as well. Capitalist decay brings about Socialist values, making the public more accepting of Marxism. Additionally, Hexbear and Lemmygrad don’t ban people who want to learn, just people who pick fights and refuse to. See the “Redpill me on China” thread. If you make a Lemm.ee, Lemmy.ml, Hexbear, Lemmygrad, or whatever you want account and meaningfully ask for people to clarify their positions without picking a fight, you’ll get honest and kind answers.

                    Why are leftists so anti-evangelical (for lack of a better term)? Why don’t leftists want to recruit?

                    They do recruit, like what I am doing right here and now. The reality is that the vast majority of liberals aren’t convinced logically, only when it becomes ideologically convenient.

    • Guy Dudeman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Appreciate the response. I don’t have time right now to read through it fully, but I will soon. And I will check out the references you mention as well. Thanks again for being a nice person.