Nonromantic Marxists

Essay

Some thoughts arrived at me along with recent political developments. I have no good idea for guessing how others would react and take the words when hearing some say “we’ll (or I’ll) do anything for … (or to … )”. The context matters evidently. What would be the objective will matter more. The case for me was particularly when Bernie Sanders said publicly he would do anything to prevent the Trump’s second term. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the same thing with slight words change in the goal as for Kamala Harris to be elected. Sanders aims the exactly same, one can nod firmly, because without Harris’s win, Trump will take the executive office in the presently ongoing events to be all in one integrated consideration.

I feel alarmed when hearing “we’ll (or I’ll) do anything for… “ in these circumstances. The Party is now fully geared up not to lose the Kamala momentum. Even a small degree of diminishment of the tide with a very small sign of it must make Democrats feel anxious.

I feel anxious enough when hearing Kamala supporters who perfectly represent their ideology or ideals or something pleasing them and present themselves as LGBTQI (I of which I had not known as Intersex), say the words as if revolutionary decree to announce. What will include their “anything” when they say they’ll do anything to defeat Trump, Trump allies, Trump supporters, Republicans, conservatives, conservative podcasters and bloggers, and anyone who write and post critical to Kamala Harris, or anything which offends those people whatever might be at whatever degree?

With this regard, I’ve so far done well, good and sufficiently to be an object for their “doing anything” in a partial fulfillment.

The evidential fact is that the huge amount of money is used to hire workers on social media, whose interests and dedications as Dems may vary. Nevertheless, when paid by the legitimate and major political party such as The Democratic Party, they are employed by such an authority of power. The Party even make laws or amend. The Party can make a picked one be the next president of America. The Party would do anything to keep The White House. Why not we do the same, for which we’re hired and the jobs are given. Good aim for good causes, most importantly. Progressives are for poor people, workers, women and children, migrants, equality and equity and diversity, minorities and all people of color for diversity and inclusion, tuitions free, no student loans, rents free (eventually, they hope), house free (hopefully, they envision), for the future in full sunshine everyday with no Trump allies nor conservatives for freedom! From which, I get a chilling feel. They’ll do anything and this “anything” or that “anything” are protected and paid by The Party, which do permit them to do “anything” because for that purpose The Party’s paying? What those “anything”-s possibly could be? came to me as a question.

*******

The concept can be said as similar to a chess game as an example. If Dems can make undecided voters convert into Dem supporters or convince them to join The Party, it will make scores toward the win. Deafening resistance is also a mark. The goal is to uneven the balance between the two parties to weigh more onto their party. Seeing it as if on a balance sheet, things are clear-crisp. However in reality, power games on different levels are played out. The lower and wider it’ll be, the more all will be raw and rough. No one or only few would question about the phenomena online, for the free speech to be well observed and protected in this country. The other reason is that Trump allies do the same for attack and defense measures. My argument here however is to draw everyone’s attention to what Dems assert with no fatigue. They’re supposed to be for equality, freedom, anti-discrimination and protection for all people who are undermined and ignored by, well, what? By white supremacy or capitalism, systemic racism and voter suppression, greedy stock markets and war games, targeted people are brutally killed in troublesome political regimes. What’s more? Corporations sucking people’s lives like monsters man-eating in Greek mythologies. Previously discriminated and labeled as weird, bizarre are people who have gained a legal classification as LBGTI with more letters coming, how exciting, who can wait?

I have a feel of their self-made contradiction which they decisively put at the top of shelves named oblivion of conscious efforts. Let’s assume what they’re thinking: Everyone must joint the party, our Party, for it’s fun and good. We are also legitimately encouraged and allowed to crash the refusers like machines cut and crush all unwanted. We gonna be very effective.

If there is one thing to point out as Dems’ most obvious hardship, that will be their absence of coherence. The coalition needs the common enemy as to be the architype of vice against which all interests and goals dividing them can be united. The typical portrayal of Republicans for Dems could be understood as a simplification made by The Party for this purpose. For which the differences within the coalition reach a reconciliation. Are really all ecologists agreeable with LGBTQI? Is it true to say that all communists support whatever sex? In my view, their dissemblance would come easily at anytime, when the embellishment of all words to describe and elevate their utopian common goal lose the rhetorical power. It does thus make sense for me to see how DNC (Convention) 2024 is created as a festivity, much more akin to movie sequences with beat and excitements than RNC 2024.

In my guess, many in whatever generation able to live onto internet, literally in terms of living as including earning, may regard conservatives as boring and no splash, while their knowing no politics nor thinking about it. In more of phases of realities, the LGBTQI movement pushed The Party into a direction which can be chaotic more than ever. The Party needs to hold lines extended too much into all directions. What’s next? LGBTQIZ (gen z) to spotlight the generation for an honorable inclusion?

Since when all those things started? There should be many books, as in a popular genre or a scholarly. I was in a way impressed by The Party’s move after the devastating debate for Joe Biden in Atlanta, Georgia back in June. First, the Party leaders cannot unite opinions within Dems and donors. Then, money (donations) stopped its smooth flow. The Biden family was stuck on the path to go. Meanwhile, no more secret not only to the American public but also to the whole world about that Biden condition. The blow was the Trump assassination attempt in July 13 in Butler, PA. Panicked, or more than panicked, Biden was quickly ousted from the presidential 2024. Now, the most impressive for me and those who notice the fact, Tim Walz was a pick to ease Progressives who might have taken some actions otherwise against the establishment. The more one sees Walz, the more one get why. He is a theoretical embodiment of Q of LGBTQI with no apparent theory, moving like a show biz man, expressive in a most unexpected way as a VP candidate, and he talks like a communist with no romantic connotations of the pastoral.

However! Walz’s attire is reported as that of working men in fields. I recall Walz was REI hire while Kamala Harris was DEI, according to a WSJ article or POLITICO’s. Forgive me for this uncertainty, but my impression was from WSJ. At any event, that does not certify Walz to be a romantic early Marxist in his mind.

Dems and liberal news media are excited for and by Harris, because she is a vital replacement and a figure proving the The D Party’s power able to make any chosen one be a star if really necessary. In my view, Harris is volatile or very volatile when elected. She was made to be VP in the Biden administration and again made to be the presidential candidate. I’m not sure, of course, but Walz seems to be more risky in a long run for Dems. Before his governorship in MN, I believe Walz was a centrist in the Congress as a Dem lawmaker, who gradually (?) turned himself to be a far-leftist. What kind of theoretical background does he have as a far-leftist, besides obvious policy approval for LGBTQ issues and generous benefits for migrants?

My disclosure here is that I did not watch Walz’s stage on Day 3 (last night) in Chicago, except his exuberant gestures, responsive to the crowd’s jubilee. More of disclosure on me is that I have certain temper to accord with a particular mood when I have such. I quickly thought that’s enough and quit his performance.

Is it though appropriate to call it performance? I used to think Walz and Kamala might be together doing mimics of standup comedians for popularity and likability to raise. In the case of Walz, that can be actually his true nature, just as a possibility. For Harris, that must be a truly hyper state out of control for her climbing up so high from a position as very or most unpopular among Democratic presidential candidates when she ran in 2020.

This can be said other paradox, which could be a secret agony of Dems, I do not know. What I meant is The Party may need more Q’s, T’s, and L’s, B’s or I’s for their ground to solidify for more votes. The Party may be hiring such people for online posts. Freaky Sci-Fi shows in reality can also attract more people (probably young but maybe not necessarily young only) who would defy the bond within the coalition of Democrats. The blow-up will come from conservatives who seek more normal environments. I deeply hope “Freaky Sci-Fi shows” will not trigger planned indignations of those who do anything. It should not be also taken as hate speech, but it is a visually objective association with a verbal deficiency from an unconcealed intention.

Bernie Sanders is on the Marxist base. He has never been a Democrat from his heart, in my understanding. However, The Party is dominent, without which it is nearly impossible or practically impossible to a ticket to the presidency. The other party is out of question for a communist. So, Sanders tried. And he sank. DNC (Committee), establishment, and super donors are around, they are a solide firm fortress. Elizabeth Warren is more an academic socialist with no much of field experiences unlike Sanders who basically walked and made speeches on politics in streets when he was young. Or, the young Warren might have done such things in more feminine manners, less vigorously than Sanders, I just do not know. Warren is scheduled to speak in Chicago tonight, Day 4. Sanders and Warren are both very wealthy (monetary) theorists (theory wisely), according to me.

*************

I had had no notion of romantic early Marxism. The learning was from a podcast by David B Hart’s Leaves in the Wind (Substack). Although I do not post the link, the site is very easy to reach. Below are screenshots of my comments and an exchange with Michael Röbbins, American poet. The dates are back in 2022 and 2023. The title shots are for the reference. China Miéville is a British writer and a Marxist. China is his first name. Richard Seymour is also a British writer.

*****

(below in my comment, CM indicates China Miéville)

(note: the sentence duplication is not arbitrary, but to show the continuation)

**

**

**

*********

(note: please do not think a lot about why the size differs)

**

****

If, today, a romantic notion of early Marxists is desired for the spiritual and ideal validation, all liberal politiciens must renounce their liberalism first of all. The wordiness of my thoughts above was a quick shot of the day for each. Sincerely I thought as such. Tonight in Chicago, the mood should be now up. No one’s there for romantic Marxists.

“Nonromantic Marxists” by Juliette Masch (8/22)