Idk guys my ex wife basically acted like she was the only person who was capable of preparing meals other than breakfast, and I was young and just kinda accepted it. She always acted incredibly skeptical and negative toward me if I suggested making dinner.

After we divorced I had to learn to cook and got pretty good at it. My current wife appreciates my cooking and I cook just as much if not more than she does. None of my kids have died due to anything I cooked them, although you'd think they came pretty close by the way they act sometimes, especially when I was vegan.

When you say "globalization," what are you referring to? I mention the international worker's movement in my comment, and how it was defeated after ww2. Incidentally, I do place much of the blame for that on Stalin as he used the Comintern not as a "communist international" but as yet another way to build a base of power and loyalism for himself and the bureaucracy.

But capitalism is already global. Imperialism is global capitalism. It is international banking and finance, it is the relation and exploitation of the second and third worlds by the first world. Its trade agreements, energy policies, embargoes. It is support for Israel and its role in destabilizing the middle east for resources.

It is absolutely true that there are no shortcuts to a better world, no hack that tricks the masses into emancipating ourselves. When I talk about revolution, i'm not talking about a putsch or a coup, although those things are inevitable as violence has consequences and the ruling capitalist class is incredibly violent, and will not hesitate to use extreme violence to suppress even legal and nonviolent forms of organizing and protest. By revolution, I mean a significant change in the way society is structured, for whose benefit. And this is deeply connected to what gets made, for whom, and why.

So the socialist revolution is a mass struggle for a better way of life. Its people no longer accepting exploitation, but real democratic organizing on local, regional, national, and international scale, on the basis of working class interests, and opposed to capitalist class interests.

This is a radically different basis for society. But the potential for it is already here. Capitalism is historically unique in many ways; and one way, is that its tendency is toward the development of two distinct classes whose interests are totally opposed. Basically, it tends to concentrate power in fewer and fewer hands, while increasing the exploitation of more and more people. Furthermore, the capitalists of our era aren't like the capitalists of the 1700-1800's, who like actually knew how to build shit and keep it running. Now, our billionaire capitalists just know how to shift money around, its the workers who actually run things.

So the way through, is solidarity, education, unity in struggle against exploitation, racism, sexism, etc., everything that the capitalists use to divide the working class. But since racism/sexism/homophobia are structural, intrinsic to capitalist rule, we can't just kumbaya it out of existence. We have to collectively and democratically smash and dismantle them. WO before we can win that fight, we have to build the basis for the alternative. Wars are won decades before they are ever fought. The basis for victory is social and structural, not pure military (although military is a part of the social structure.)

Sorry I'm so long winded, I just like to make it clear what my ideas are to avoid talking past another person in a discussion. But yeah, if you can help me understand what you mean by "globalization," then it will be easier to fully understand your comment.

There's always so much to unpack in these discussions. The Marxist theory of the state is the historic mechanism of class rule. Both anarchists and communists believe this, that the ruling class of capitalism uses the state in order to oppress and exploit the masses.

Both left tendencies are revolutionary, both left tendencies want to seize production for the workers, both left tendencies understand that state power must be seized, and the capitalist state must be destroyed.

The difference seems to be, that Marxist communists believe in establishing a workers state to suppress the existing bourgeois elements, where anarchists more want to transition away from the state as a form of geographic organization.

Lenin's theory was that the worker state would not need all the functions of the bourgeois state, and would be able to phase out those functions. But Lenin's theory was also dependent on an international worker revolution. When the revolution in Germany failed, when Russia was invaded by capitalists and the remaining Tsarist forces allied with the invaders, it forced a crisis in Russia. From there, it was just crisis after crisis. Lenin originally said "all power to the Soviets (worker councils)" but when the civil war completely destroyed what little industrial capacity Russia had, then there were no factories in which to organize for. Without a place to work, there's no workers and hence no worker organization.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks did make mistakes, but the conditions were extremely fraught. In the process of smashing the state, there were many functions of state that were necessary in order to prevent the reactionaries and foreign capitalists from seizing state power for themselves. This led to rehiring the old tsarist state bureaucrats back into the roles that they had prior to the revolution, and this happened on a mass scale. But this wasn't by design, it was an accident, a quirk of necessity brought on by years and years of war. When the civil war was over, Lenin was sick, and the bureaucracy rallied around Stalin who had been working to replace the "old Bolsheviks" who had taken up roles of state functionaries, with people who were loyal to him. Stalin didn't create the bureaucracy, so much as the bureaucracy elevated him. Without worker councils the bureaucracy was the only power left in Russia.

Trotsky and Lenin's theory of permanent revolution never left the page, and Trotsky was able to wield it as a resistance to Stalinist bureaucracy, but conditions under Trotsky wouldn't have been much different. He would have faced the same challenges, and I don't have to tell a comm of anarchists about the utter tragedy that he oversaw at Kronstadt. But still, anarchist historian Paul Averich, critical of Lenin at every turn, still hesitates to lay responsibility for it at the feet of Lenin. But after that, the disastrous NEP.

Stalin developed the theory of socialism in one country, which established the "socialist state." But even without the theory, the contradictions of global capitalist statehood were still forced on the country of Russia.

I still think the theory laid out in State and Revolution is sound. I think there needs to be some way of organizing against foreign invasion and internal sabotage. I don't think Russia or even China are particularly good examples, but also, both cases were barely industrialized peasant societies when they defeated their weak domestic capitalist class.

I think if mass worker revolution happened in a highly industrialized then the possibility of a just and democratic worker state would be more possible than what happened in Russia. I consider myself a communist, but if I was in country presided over by a Stalinist bureaucracy, I'd be killed in the purges, along with the rest of you. I believe that you keep fighting for liberation until all are free and all are equal and in harmony with nature, that it is the fight for those things that moves humanity forward. And maybe I'm just not familiar enough with Anarchist theory, but the contradictions that reify into the state form do not go away just because the state is mired in contradictions. As long as there classes there will be the need to organize geographically.

I believe that no revolution will be possible until there's real worker control and democracy. And if the conditions actually get there, like on a global scale, then chances are I will want something more decentralized and consent driven for all people. But as long as there are classes there is the need to suppress one or the other, and the only way to do that is some kind of central organization that oversees those relations within a particular geographic area. As the bourgeois class is dismantled, so is the necessity for the worker state to dismantle it. This is how the state withers away. The fact that it did not, could not happen in Russia doesn't mean it is wrong, in theory. It just means the time of global revolution is still in the future.

This is not meant as a "gotcha" to anarchists, I just think the theory is explained, and isn't hard to understand. And there's lots of valid historical concerns about it. But with the most good faith intention, if a country found themselves in a revolutionary situation, and faced these very real problems, what alternative would there be bit central organization of one form or another? In my opinion, the problems of authoritarianism can be mitigated through direct participation and political education. If such an organization could take up the functions of state, then I think it would be more successful than either 20th century state socialism or decentralized anarchism.

Fork found in kitchen

/hj 👀

I've had some interesting experiences, to say the least. I'm a white guy, so I can't understand peoples perspectives, but I can def see how it plays out.

One of the most jarring, but in fact maybe the most subtle instance I experienced, our org had a general meeting (open to the public). Of course, virtually anyone in the org you talk to will tell you we have a "whiteness problem". So def something people discuss and are aware of. One day, a young black woman came to check us out. Contributed to discussions in really interesting ways. At the end of the meeting, she just kinda lurked around a bit, picked up her stuff and walked out. I know for a fact nobody knew her, and yet nobody greeted her. So I followed her out, we had a nice talk, I got her info and we had some really good one on ones. She came back to a few general meetings and continued to contribute to discussions.

But she never did join our org, that I am aware.

Probably the most blatant examples though have been much, much worse. Those didn't happen within socialist orgs, but progressive ones. I found those progressive orgs to be filled with a lot of nice people, but run by very amateurish, ignorant, intolerant, and sometimes downright toxic individuals. Good times

But if the layers between the Democrats and the socialists are so nasty, no wonder a lot of people don't make it over. And if the Socialist layers are still pretty touch and go, at best, no wonder people don't stay around.

Black voters, particularly black women, are the most progressive voters of any demographic, by a long shot.

Black people put off by DSA are a different story, and not easily understood or labeled. Frankly, there is real skepticism toward DSA and socialism in general. I've had many conversations about it, not from "socially conservative" black people but from very progressive black people who could not get over their criticisms and hesitations despite many attempts at direct engagement with DSA and Democratic Socialists. I def know black radical DSA members. But skepticism toward DSA is not just a socially conservative phenomenon.

I had a one-time but total psychotic break from smoking weed, it was not fun and took a very long time to recover from. I had been a daily user for years, quit for about a month, and then smoked a small amount I had left over. I hadnt had an adverse reaction like that before or since. I became a daily user again for maybe 6-8 months, but I've since quit.

I'm not saying it will happen to you, and I'm not trying to preach about the dangers, but this was my experience, and it was very bad. I would not agree with someone trying to sell a line of "reefer madness" as it helped me through some pretty rough times. But when it didn't, I had some negative side effects too. I def don't think there is zero negative effects to using it.

No resume needed, complete success

One of the most interesting people I've ever met was a woman who hand painted signs and "flash" on windows.

As a teenager, she left home to join the circus, because she wanted to learn how to paint all the signs and posters that you see at circuses and travelling fairs. After several years in a travelling circus, she decided to start a business as a commercial sign company. She invested heavily in vinyl cutters, industrial printers, a large shop to house all the equipment, and hired employees to run the equipment.

But once she started going to meet with potential clients, according to her, nobody wanted the laser cut, industrially precision printed sign work; once clients found out she had the ability to create high quality hand-painted signs and flash, they hired her to do the hand-painted work. It turns out, that people are so bombarded by machine mass manufactured signs and images, that people tend to block it out as so much disinteresting background noise. But the hand-painted stuff stands out, even when produced with near-mechanical levels of precision.

So she sold the big shop and equipment. And now, she drives in a truck, filled with her paint and supplies, to a client with her daughter. The owner says what they want, she and her daughter go back to the truck, design it on the spot, get approval from the owner, paint it same day, take their payment and go on to the next client.

It reminds me of how so many people are getting tired of overproduced auto-tuned music. It just fades into the background.

I think AI content is quickly doing the same thing, fading into the background as slop. But people have such a (rightly) negative opinion of it, that I think a hard return to authenticity is going to come back fast. Its interesting how YouTube has started purging AI content creators. Back when there was a controversy surrounding ai content channels pushing violent and sexual content to children, very little was done outside public outrage. But now that the stuff is actively driving less people to interact with the platforms, the companies are aggressively purging these channels.

Progressive Stack

MF that's not what progressive stack is. What the actual fuck is this freak talking about

Sure, I definitely agree, as long as it doesn't lead to cutting off from members of the working class engaged in principled electoralism. Something interesting that happened in our chapter recently, is one of my comrades cochaired a campaign to change the way our city votes for city council. Currently they have 9 at large seats, we wanted the city districts to vote for their own reps. Currently city council is bought and paid for by developers who are destroying the public schools in order to get tax abatements for their gentrifying. This had real connections with existing social movement in our city, the launch discussion we had was one of the best experiences I've had in our chapter, as it brought in so many different perspectives, not just DSA people.

The start up to the campaign was long, and really difficult. It required building a coalition with much more liberal progressive groups, a painful and unstable process all the way through. Once it picked up steam and it was obvious that we were gonna get the sigs to make it on the ballot, city council starts trying to coopt, creates their own version that has 9 elected seats and 8 at large. They even name their initiative after our campaign. Obvs people don't go for it and eventually, city council gets it down to 9 and 4 at large.

We take this for a vote at a DSA general meeting. Keep in mind, we have many new and electorally minded members. Our chapter voted to accept city council's recommendation. We (that is the left which included one of the co chairs of the campaign) opposed it strongly, but many newer realignment minded members felt it was a good enough compromise.

So then, the campaign takes it to the progressive coalition. DSA members have already recommended to accept City Council's proposal. Against all expectations, the coalition voted against city councils plan, to continue to the ballot with the plan to change all city council seats to district vote rather than allow any at large seats. We were floored.

My point is, that the left's engagement in leadership from the beginning allowed us to shape the coalition, and keep the campaign on track. A lot of these people are individualistic in the way they conceive of politics, but their experiences inform them. If we can demonstrate another way, then the leaders of the existing working class, reformist and realignmentist that it may be, might decide to side with the people over the establishment, granted a principled left is capable of engaging the base and turning them out.

The problem with electoralism is that winning elections is the theory of change. However winning elections can still he an avenue toward change, given that it is contextualized within a Marxist revolutionary ToC. In that way, elections and campaigns are a quantitative measure, they are a means rather than an end. In the instance of our local campaign, we were able to like discipline the electoralists in DSA by making them face the reality that they had voted to the right of the politically active working class. None of that would have been possible by dealing with electoralism in the abstract.