I think this article I shared earlier in the week on /c/history is a pretty good piece to send to people, especially those at least sympathetic towards socialism. It outlines how the abolitionists actually managed to achieve lasting change in the United States, despite its 2 party system and powerful slave-owning aristocracy.

Basically it lays out what was done by the abolitionists to achieve a better world. That could help us start a serious discussion on what is to be done in our time.

The Abolitionist Dirty Break by Ben Grove

From the introduction of the piece:

How can a small movement challenge the Leviathan? How can it find strength in its independence? How can it topple a power that seems omnipotent and achieve a revolution?

In 2024, these tasks may seem hopelessly difficult to socialists in the United States. But defying the powerful has never been easy, and we will always have lessons to learn from our predecessors. One of the most important, yet also misunderstood, is the American abolitionist movement.

It’s easy enough to celebrate abolitionists for their righteous principles: activists of every stripe invoke their legacy. Yet abolitionists and their Radical Republican allies were more than just moral idealists. They were also cunning revolutionary strategists. Using principled independent politics, they successfully attacked America’s slaveholding oligarchy and the two-party system that protected it. Their insights and debates have tremendous relevance for modern socialists, because abolitionism helped to ignite the most important revolutionary rupture in U.S. history: the Civil War and the downfall of chattel slavery.

And these were the conditions that their movement built itself in:

By the 1820s, a two-party system of Whigs and Democrats was developing, nurtured by the brilliant New York politician Martin Van Buren. Van Buren’s explicit goal was to use the excitement of party politics to distract the masses from more dangerous conflicts over slavery. Whigs and Democrats would have fiery conflict and genuine power struggles—but both sides suppressed opposition to America’s true ruling class: the planters of the South, the Slave Power.

Haven’t gotten around to trying to really read this article in full but it looks like you’ve got a pretty serious misquote.

That last paragraph you quote, which is at the end of the article, is followed by a single sentence given its own paragraph. So it actually reads as follows:

The promise of an end to the drama might be enough to elect Kamala. I want it to be true.

But it is a lie.

Emphasis mine.

So he’s not saying it’ll actually happen. Of all things he’s rejecting the “40k Ork logic” that you’re trying to pin on him. It sounds more like he’s lamenting that ‘If Democrats weren’t lying, maybe Kamala Harris winning would lead to better circumstances, but they are lying.’

Cutrone has had some completely garbage takes (e.g. Palestine) but we don’t need to stoop to the level of misreading him so carelessly. That benefits no one.

Why do people on this site keep saying, without checking, that there are no resources available whatsoever to help people get out of evac zones? Making claims like this without checking first could get people fucking killed. Do better.

There are government resources available to help people evacuate. I actually made a thread that lists some resources including for the county that Tampa is part of: https://hexbear.net/post/3632288

I still don’t see how this is radlib. It might be radical to your or me, but how is it a radical form of liberalism instead of just a form of mainstream liberalism?

We should be careful about watering down words. The Atlantic being radlib would mean there’s little liberalism that isn’t radlib.

How is The Atlantic radlib? There’s not really anything radical about it.

Is he really making a mistake? It seems to me like he’s engaging in immanent critique of The Atlantic.

He’s showing how what it does contradicts and differs from what it says it does.

What do you mean by the Marxist conception? Marx himself sometimes uses the term middle class.

Here’s a few examples.

The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1:

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Chapter 1:

The bourgeois monarchy of Louis Philippe can be followed only by a bourgeois republic; that is to say, whereas a limited section of the bourgeoisie ruled in the name of the king, the whole of the bourgeoisie will now rule in the name of the people. The demands of the Paris proletariat are utopian nonsense, to which an end must be put. To this declaration of the Constituent National Assembly the Paris proletariat replied with the June insurrection, the most colossal event in the history of European civil wars. The bourgeois republic triumphed. On its side stood the aristocracy of finance, the industrial bourgeoisie, the middle class, the petty bourgeois, the army, the lumpen proletariat organized as the Mobile Guard, the intellectual lights, the clergy, and the rural population. On the side of the Paris proletariat stood none but itself.

Capital Volume 1, Chapter 25, Section 4:

Pauperism is the hospital of the active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial reserve army. Its production is included in that of the relative surplus population, its necessity in theirs; along with the surplus population, pauperism forms a condition of capitalist production, and of the capitalist development of wealth. It enters into the faux frais of capitalist production; but capital knows how to throw these, for the most part, from its own shoulders on to those of the working class and the lower middle class.