quarrk [he/him]

  • 49 Posts
  • 497 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 30th, 2022

help-circle







  • Good article. I never saw any problem with how Marx reasoned through calculus as it was obviously an informal explanation. Uninitiated and malicious observers who have not otherwise read Marx will miss the dialectical approach he took in understanding the subject.

    Qualitative analysis, critique of categories was always the larger concern for Marx. Given stable and correct categories, the quantitative answer is trivial to find (by this I mean not necessarily easy, but following directly from the question). But so shoddy was the theoretical basis in political economy that he had to theorize extensively to correct it.












  • I think we agree. In my first statement I had in mind the party elite, the kingmakers who are actually in charge of the party direction and of the nobodies from small districts who they hand-pick for a larger national presence. We have already seen how small are the Marjorie Taylor Greens, how easily they are elevated then discarded. They are basically pawns. So are virtually all US politicians. Many of the 435 representatives in the House are on the same political level as the weather person on the local news. True-believers may be as loud as they would like, as long as they don’t tug on the leash.


  • Neither party has ever believed in their own rhetoric. It has always been an intentionally curated aesthetic, designed to capture the most votes. Of course with the requisite bourgeois class consciousness so that, even as each party opposes its rhetoric against the other, they overlap on some key attitudes e.g. imperialism.

    What upsets the Democrats is not that they are jealous of the Republicans, but that the Republicans broke the rules of the game, the rules that bounded partisan rhetoric. The Democrats have to react or be shut out of power for decades, but they aren’t sure how. Trump had a major first-move advantage because the hypocrisy of the Democrats was always obvious to the party elites, so all he had to do was call it out:

    ”The Democrats say they care about the working class, but the working class conditions are worse than ever even with Democrat leadership. The Democrats say that they are for all Americans, but they openly despise you, a poor rural American, and favor the wealthy urban financial elite. The Democrats say that they are the open-tent party and yet openly shut out popular outsiders like Bernie Sanders.”

    There is nothing the Democrats can do to effectively counter that, because it’s fucking true. At most, they can point the finger back at the Republicans, and bring up Republican hypocrisy; but “no u” looks petty in comparison.

    In the face of these challenges, the Democratic Party faces an identity crisis which is a knot, an impossible knot that can only be cut open. This cutting-open means a complete brand shift for the party. What it ought to shift toward, within the logic of American electoralism, is obviously social democracy. This is what the Sanders movement proved. But the party financial backers have decided that when it is a choice between social democracy and open fascism, when Trump has proved that open fascism is acceptable for enough of the population to win elections — these financial backers will choose open fascism. The backers don’t care about the Democratic Party as such, because it was only a means to an end, an end which they already won.