The monkey-paw has curled it's fingers

The left has oriented itself against neoliberalism specifically for so long I don't think it's well positioned to understand or react to neoliberalism ending under Trump. Can we oppose whatever the new thing is going to be without being nostalgic for neoliberalism, like we used to be for fordism?

This take would would make more sense if the tariffs weren't driving stock prices down. But they are. Big companies and the bourgeoisie will lose billions of dollars because of the tariffs.

No, something else is going on. This analysis doesn't cut it.

I think if there is to be one guiding principal for socialists at the moment it should be independence. We need an independent movement, and eventually party, that holds itself to be separate from the capitalist powers

My position is it's about the relationship between the ends and means. But I do think we should talk about this! I have to actually do work now but let's discuss later

Yeah, I kinda mention this in my thread. He may not have intended what he did as propaganda of the deed. I'm not sure. What seems relevant to my critique, though, is that portions of the left have interpreted it that way, so I think it's worth considering what that means

I think it might be fun for us to stream a friendly debate about this. Just a thought that I make no promises on following up on setting up

Here's Lenin on it: www.marxists.org/archive/leni...

Right, so it seems fair to say you support is as an act of propaganda. This approach is one Marxists have historically opposed.

It's fine that you support it, though, since you're "anarchish". Propaganda of the deed is an anarchist tactic. When self described Marxists support it, I get annoyed.

I haven't heard of dialop til just now, is that the project for leftists to talk to Christians?

For the record, I am in favor of everyone talking to each other.

Maybe it could be clarifying

The precise ways in which it's awful! And, maybe it's worth pointing out to people who might consider themselves to be Marxists what the history of Marxist positions on these things is. As a Marxist, I'd like for people who aren't Marxists to realize that maybe they aren't Marxists after all

I agree that if there's anything to learn it is in people's reaction to what happened. But, that applies to the left as well and I have learned about the left from their celebration of Luigi!

In the context of an actual movement for revolution, I would support any necessary act. I do think the ends can justify the means. But, individual terrorism is not necessary, and in this case it is totally disconnected from any ends. To pretend otherwise is to lie to ourselves and cloud our thinking

Mangione's act, in truth, will accomplish nothing of worth for the socialist movement. I think it hurts our thoughts and our discipline to embrace it on a purely aesthetic level

The answer, I think, is in order to be disciplined in our own thought. Mangione's may not even have been intended as propaganda. But, the left seems to have interpreted the action in these terms. As Marxists, it's still worthwhile to remember which tactics are ours and which aren't.

The political ends that justified Lenin's opposition to terrorism seem to be missing.

So, why hold on to these positions that seem to be unpopular on the broader left?

After all, Luigi doesn't even reach the level of the SRs Lenin condemned for such tactics, in the sense that the SRs were part of an actual movement and had socialist aims. Further, we aren't part of such a movement either.

Short thread.

It might seem strange to say stuff like we shouldn't support Luigi Mangione on the basis of a Marxist opposition to propaganda of the deed.

The problem with bluesky is that I have way less followers on here than on Twitter/X.

This concept is a knock-off of an old r/nosleep story.

Isn't this the guy who hates the internet archive? I don't care about copyright but it's kinda ironic.

You aren't wrong. Also dialectics is precisely the thing that makes socialism "scientific" I think. That's what Karl Korsch says and it's in Engels too

They aren't really separable from the DOTP/historical materialism I don't think

There's a letter where Marx says the only two unique contributions he's made to socialism are the DOTP and historical materialism. But yes, dialectical materialism/scientific socialism are very important too

Socialism needs to be about independent organizing and proletarian power. Not making demands of the Democrats or individual terrorism. "Propaganda of the deed" is not Marxist

The DOTP is the most defining feature of Marxism and tendencies that reject it aren't Marxist and also are usually Bourgeois.

Capitalist politicians can lie and be dishonest for propaganda reasons. Socialists can't really do this in the same way they can. We have to be principled and honest, especially at this point in time, and our movement has to be conscious in a way Bourgeois movements don't.

Anyway, the point of revolution is freedom. That's why being a normal Libertarian is better than being a leftist. Most leftists are aligned with the democratic party and have forgotten that socialism is about liberation/freedom, because they support the Dems and the police state

If you read more Marxism you might change your mind!

It could go wrong, that's true. And it has gone wrong, it did in 1917. But it's also the only plausible way out of the crisis of capitalism