I think you'll find no one reasonably educated thinks that vague, low-resolution Marxian discourse 'scientifically reflects reality'. What the hell are you smoking?Magpietothemax wrote:Or you can decide to question the corporate media, and instead consider an alternative analysis of events which scientifically reflects reality because it draws out the class interests behind the known actions and the propaganda.
Everyone has a choice.
There is ample condemnation here without projecting your own omniscience delusions on the key actors concerned, as if everyone knows and causes every outcome and therefore everything by definition can be controlled. That might be comforting for those with low ambiguity tolerance, but it's not scientific anything and not even reflective of the little we do know about human minds. You don't even seem to notice the contradiction between discussing the construct 'class' even as you attribute perfect cognisance, planning and control, including the doozy 'everyone has a choice'.
Sure, the creep doesn't care for Palestinians, and he was no soubt using Hamas for his own political benefit. He is also clearly ethnocentric and identifies with American imperialism. But it's another step to risk himself being hung in the square for treason when he can get what he wants in so many other ways at no cost to himself.
Far more likely his grandiosity, grandiose goals and a thick padding of lackeys led him to be reckless with other people's lives as he sought to 'win. It's clear from events long before this he's deranged, but not in a self-damaging sort of way. True, people can go mad, but this in line with what we have always known about him: other people's wellbeing is not his concern.
We don't want malignant narcississts leading nations and organisations because they are extremely reckless and delusionally self-confident in pursuit of glory. The last thing a Netanyahu or Trump wants is to be blamed for a massive security failure, contrary to their desire to be recognised as Real Men [TM] blessed with singular greatness. But they do want glory so badly that they can't manage risk rationally.
They then surround themselves with incompetent fawning yes men and essentially build a cult, making the risk of poor decisions and major mishaps even greater. Then, once exposed, they'll do anything to fend off realising their disgrace and banishment, which is what we're seeing with him now. Forget the conspiracy aspect; what we're seeing now is an open-air war crime, while the state of Gaza has long been a humanitarian catastrophe at his hands, while most people despise his lunatic settler cult and now hate him for failing his own nation. Throwing conspiracy into the mix only deters people from coming to that realisation. Your approach is premature and overdone, factually askew and tactically unhelpful.
Many on the left feed off the delusions of grandeur of a Trump or Netanyahu because the patter like to project control, and no doubt get off on people thinking that they really do have control, and the left itself desires a greater sense of control. Whether people agree with him or not is far less important to Netanyahu than them ascribing him great efficacy, confirming his inner delusions of grandeur. That's part of what makes the old left so affirming for these types, and why they go on about the left day and night: no one makes them feel more rational, sophisticated and powerful, and less compulsive and out of control, than the far left. The relationship is in many respects a dependent one.
Meanwhile, Biden is locked into the constraints of American culture and society and all the delusions associated therewith. I will deal with the implications of that in a follow-up post, but old Marxian theory is very confused about the relationship between cultures, social groups, instutions and roles, and individuals; how they interact, how they work in the real everyday world, and how determinative each is and when. In your defence, I don't think anyone really has a great theory of these things, but you seem unaware that you are nowhere near squaring the circle, and how this causes you to default to conspiratorial control.
That you have minimal organisational experience compared to someone like Stui makes that even worse, because you seem oblivious to just how dumb organisations and layers of government agencies and chains of command make people, and why you never reflexively go for conspiracy before checking laziness, carelessness, over-confidence, error, misunderstanding, ignorance, mutual bum-slapping and congratulation, jobs for the boys, arrogance, sheer stupidity, etc.
Ideological bias and selfishness are a human given, but these things play out in really dumb, really limited sub-cultures and organisations, and are carried out by often highly susceptible key people. Hence, my first port of call based on current evidence is that this was a reckless playing with fire to help permanently scupper peace or the two-state agenda, perhaps laced with a cultural chauvinism that underestimated Hamas and over-estimated Israel's famed security apparatus, distracted by careless, callous and clueless giant egos. That could change with more evidence, but it's always wise to play the numbers first. That's not a conspiracy; rather, it's how these things often work, which is why the original sin is in the quality of people elected and hired.
By arbitrarily ascribing agency when and where it suits your doctrine, you are led into conspiracies whereby people have complete and completely unrealistic control. Conspiracy happens, but it's not the go-to; it's something that evolves as evidence is furnished. We all arbitrarily assign agency because it's hard to avoid, but we usually offset it with contradictory acknowledgements and considerable caution. But you just plough on as if oblivious, with nary a hint of caution as if you know, you just know. As I say, it's simply that you don't record when you're wrong that you can sustain this level of omniscience fantasy.
(It's no coincidence you seem unaware that this very problem is the origin of the break between structuralism/modernity and poststructuralism/postmodernity in social theory. In reality, people and organisations, including ourselves and our own, are far messier, flawed and shambolic than we like to admit, which is why no one of any wordly experience buys Marxian thought even if they are not enamoured with the present, which I think you'll find is most of us here. I don't think poststructuralism is the answer, but much of its critique of Marxian grand narrative is just as right today as it was in the 1970s.)
