[Caution, leftist infighting/snide remarks below]

spoiler

I’m confused, doesn’t worsening material conditions count as political utility in his eyes?

Edit:I normally wouldn’t have an issue, since it’s actually pretty sane, but I literally thought to myself today “it would be funny if BE said Kirk’s death was a bad thing because adventurism will make things worse.” I was joking. I’m starting to hypothosize that economists [both accelerationist and reformists] are actually simps for the status quo

    • lydialmao22@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Yep, its based on a vibe or the idea of ‘solidifying their position’ when there is absolutely no material gain the right has from this, if anything they lost one of their main propagandists (which granted is only an issue for them in the short term, if even that). Their position is not ‘solidified’ and their grounds are not ‘stronger,’ the resources at their disposal, the propaganda they wield, and the industry they command is the same regardless if this guy is dead or alive. Hell Trump, Vance, Shapiro, everyone on the far right could die tonight and it would not significantly strengthen or weaken their long term political power, it would only cause short term confusion

      Your position is solely based on vibes of what sounds like should be correct. This is something people implicitly accept as true without any critical thinking. It feels correct, its what everyone else is saying, and it aligns with how historical development is traditionally understood so it checks off the bias box as well. But make no mistake, this is an idealist view of the world. You absolutely cannot strengthen material power and material goals through ideals alone. Rhetoric does not create material power.

      But lets just say that yes, youre correct. That his death really will somehow strengthen the far right overnight (as if they didnt already have the backing of the bourgeoisie with little challenge) and werent already deploying the national guard to major cities. Lets say such a thing not only is possible but even significantly beneficial to the far right as you describe. Would they not just orchestrate a similar event themselves to create the justification anyway? If they really needed it then theyd just do that. Ergo, Kirks death means nothing, because otherwise it wouldve been someone else and the outcome is identical. Because this was the trajectory regardless, and no ideals, rhetoric, sense of petty revenge can change that. No one man can change that by being dead or alive.

      Your take is fairly unmaterialist and ignores class struggle in favor of individualism and vibe based idealism