>>468462>If you think we can currently over throw the capitalist order you are out of your mind
Once again you go to the most extreme position of your opponent in order to justify your own. Who said anything about overthrowing capitalism? The only one who mentions it is you, because you're using it as a rhetorical tactic. It's at this point it's becoming clearer that your intentions are malicious.>It requires organized labor en mass which is currently not feasible
You simply assert this as if it were true. Well, until you justify it I'm going to dismiss it as ideological bullshit.>Progressive income tax; Tax owners of property not people who work
I'm surprised you didn't say "tax only white owners of property". Seems more in line with your ethos.>It's not being conservative to be realistic
Yeah, it actually is, in the way you're using the word "realistic". That word has been turned into an ideological tool by conservatives to deflate class consciousness and tear apart socialist movements. I would tell you to read a fucking book but something tells me you're not interested in any knowledge beyond eating the trash that the bourgeoisie feeds you.>and not live in a delusional fantasy land where the soviet union 2.0 is right around the corner
Again, no one said anything of the sort, but you keep acting as if we had in order to make us look extreme and irrational. Pure malintent.>>468471>neo-liberalism restored the rate of profit, so it was realistic
First, the way it restored the rate of profit was unrealistic. Neoliberalism crippled the empires ability to compete with the other great powers. Neoliberalism is dying and bourgeois politicians are now attempting to reshore industry.
Second, neoliberalism had goals other than restoring the rate of profit. The entire premise of neoliberalism was a contradiction. It's an antistatist ideology that relies on state intervention to do everything. That sound realistic to you?
The USSR managed to industrialize rapidly, but that doesn't make Soviet socialism realistic. If anything, it was a lack of realistic goals and planning that caused the Soviet elite to lose faith in the communist project and rule cynically until it's ultimate demise, under a "more realistic" socdem no less.>>468474>It's not a defense of capitalism to be realistic about our current situation
Once again, it definitely is in the way you use the word.>It's not a defense of capitalism to say that we can, through progressive liberal policies; while simultaneously upholding a radical line, achieve marginal gains for all people including minority communitiesYes it fucking is.
You are attempting to force us to abandon the project of organizing the working class in order to participate in bourgeois politics. This is nothing less than a defense of the status quo, a defense of capitalism.>while simultaneously demanding and agitating for the radical over throw of capitalism as an economic system
"Upholding a radical line" and "agitating for the overthrow of capitalism" is meaningless if you have nothing to back it up, it's posturing that working class people can immediately see through. Do you think we can't smell your bullshit? This is a perfect way to discredit the socialist movement, because it's what the communists have been doing for decades in the west, even before neoliberalism took hold.>I'm sorry that you believe that just because I am intolerant to your underhanded insults and bad faith acting
Now here's a real example of projection.>Marginally and progressively over a period of time, as long as it takes>In the last 20 years leftists had made marginal gains>Even getting that husk Biden elected over trump was a good thing. Is it what we ultimately want? No, but, it's better than the alternative.
I can't find a better example of the futility of your position. No, even worse, it contradictory. You are the one being unrealistic.
It's unrealistic to believe that we can achieve socialism in this way. It's unrealistic to believe that these marginal gains will somehow lead up to the workers seizing power. Yet you keep pushing it as the "realistic" position, and my guess is because it really is realistic if you don't actually have any of those goals in mind. In other words, you are little more than a shill for the left-wing of capital, acting as if you are a radical, just like every other leftist that has succumbed to capitalist realism.>Yes I assure you that cointtel pro is targeting a basket weaving forum with less than 200 users.
Again, trying to discredit your opponents argument by going to the extreme. Who said anything about the CIA? No, you're a neoliberal wrecker because that's what you actually are. No alphabet agencies are required here. You are drowning in neoliberal ideology and can't help but try to drag everyone else down with you.>it only becomes an issue when you place those identity politics over class politics
As we have already told you several times now, they are in contradiction. You are the only one who doesn't understand that you can help marginalized people without identity politics. You are the only one who refuses to acknowledge that a even a strictly workerist program can help marginalized people. The truth is that you think idpol is necessary just because you are a shill for idpol, simple as.>IT's absurd to think otherwise<I am incapable of thinking otherwise
FTFY>if red lining was still a thing that was happening or segregation would you support ending segregation or would you say that "well we shouldn't inact policy that benefits JUST one group of people
You fucking moron. What red lining does is segregate the working class. No idpol is needed to understand this, the specific identities of the workers being segregated can be ignored. A universal working class program would be opposed to this simply because it threatens class unity. It's shocking just how limited your ability to think about class-based politics is.