You must log in or # to comment.
Yes Boris we must destroy what little protections we have left and we must do it for the people and totally not so the elites can come carve us up.
If you’re buying this shit I hope you’re buying lube, too!
Revolution>reform
petrostate stays winning until we value the people and the land they live on more than we value the resources they stand on
You say that as if ordinary people got a say in any of this
we won’t so long as we don’t band together!
“Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Ooh, a bumper sticker of that’d be super fun —but pretty unwise in this gestapi climate. 🤌🏼
Believe it or not, straight to jail
I’m of the opinion that both your points are salient. Americans do not have democratic agency, and would be just about as evil if they did, but with better healthcare and weed.
Edit: Maybe less commitment to stupid wars that are obvious meat grinders.
We are so fucked.
What if one group says the land another group is standing on is actually theirs and they want to take it back? For example, what if
native Americansinvading aliens wanted to evict allnon-nativesnon-aliens?Edit: the hypothetical seems to be pulling a lot of attention away from the point so I updated it with something hopefully less reactionary.
Which invading aliens are you speaking about? Are you trying to say Mexicans? Are you saying what if Mexicans coming to the US say it’s theirs and they want it back?
Nope, like literal space aliens, like E.T. or predator or that movie independence day with Will Smith
what if native Americans wanted to evict all non-natives?
Why do you assume Native Americans would act exactly like white fascists do?
Why do you assume my white owners aren’t going to do this to me? I feel like the indigenous folks wouldn’t be as shitty about it even if they did.
Why do you assume my white owners aren’t going to do this to me?
And that’s my “assumption” (according to you) because…?
Because I’m being charitable and if you werent, the concern you were talking about would be just, like ‘but imagine the guy signing the papers to make you homeless is wearing a feather head dress(musical sting) while he does it!’
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on being a weird kind of absurd degree of racist or boot licker. I… Guess I can drop that assumption if you like?
Because I’m being charitable
Nah… I rather think you’re just full of shit.
So what else could that mean, other than those two things?
It’s totally just a hypothetical. I guess I should have used aliens or something.
It’s totally just a hypothetical.
Even hypotheticals must be based on grounding assumptions… what was yours based on?
I was originally thinking of Israel and the greater Israel project but didn’t want to touch on that topic and somehow I’m still regretting it. We’re getting away now from what the hypothetical was for aka scenarios where people in group X want people in group Y’s land in any sense or scenario no longer specified by anything or any hypotheticals whatsoever.
So I’ve actually known indigenous folks! They generally don’t want me to leave the country and die until they date me.
And until pretty recently, most Palestinians just wanted someplace to live and make a living. They didn’t mind living alongside filthy Zionist rape monsters, new buildings put together a little taller and no new settlers imported. No idea what the general vibe is now.
It’s a random hypothetical, I guess I should have used aliens because everyone is kinda hyper fixating on the example hypothetical and not the actual point of the discussion.
I was originally thinking of Israel and the greater Israel project
Israel is a white supremacist settler-colonialist project that acts like a white supremacist settler-colonialist project… it’s a pretty cut-and-dried situation.
but didn’t want to touch on that topic
Why not? It’s a very easy topic to touch.
Some people are scared of talking about Israel because they can be at great personal risk if caught talking about it. They also might not know how rabid or not rabid the online community they’re posting in will turn out to be.
Once again it’s just a hypothetical about any scenario where group X may want group Y’s land regardless of the details. Maybe group X is good maybe they are bad maybe this maybe that, I think we can step away from the specifics because we’re moving away from the original point. Now you’re kinda proving why, it’s because I thought it would guide the conversation into being about the hypothetical more than the original point which is why I said I guess I should have used aliens.
generally speaking, that is not what landback advocates are calling for. landback means that it is the people who live in concert with the land who will lead its management, and it is the responsibility of others to listen and learn
And even if it were, I’d rather have some tribe own my apartment than blackrock capital. Even the proposed scary misunderstanding isn’t worse than what currently exists, and could be better.
the people who live in concert with the land
What does that even mean? It sounds an awful lot like noble savage mythology.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it’s something I want to make a distinguishment from. I do not want to fetishize or otherwise dehumanize indigenous people. I merely want to acknowledge that every culture has something they do better than anyone else. Us Europeans? We built pan-oceanic boats capable of traversing the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. That’s absolutely incredible! We are however, dogshit at land management. Hence the constant European desire to colonize more and more of the planet, taking up more and more land to meet the material needs of an aristocratic class that required closely shorn lawns for leisure activities such as polo and croquet.
Meanwhile, I also do not think that indigenous north Americans were perfect. For example, the Cherokee committed a genocide against the Osage, the Inca, Aztek, and Mayans all had theocratic structures that were not great for a large number of people living in their territories, the various peoples of the Americas hunted mega-fauna they encountered to extinction. However, in order for any plan for a hopeful future, we must draw wisdom from many sources. We know this because the current European global hegemony is failing. So we need to start looking for wisdom from other sources. One of the things when we interrogate history is that prior to Europe leveraging military violence to place the global south into a perpetual state of underdevelopment is that the people of the Americas had INCREDIBLE land management strategies that were interwoven with their cultural heritages (food, language, social structures) and agricultural outputs leading to some extremely interesting crops that have become staples worldwide such as corn, potatoes, sunflowers, beans, and tomatoes.
In conclusion: my point is to draw sources from subjugated knowledge
my point is to draw sources from subjugated knowledge
Really not sure what “subjugated knowledge” is supposed to mean.
In any case this is mostly irrelevant. It’s been hundreds or thousands of years, depending on which culture you’re talking about. The environmental conditions have changed, the land has changed, and the cultures are long gone. We have newer methods and better options for land and resource management, and for studying the current actual conditions, and for understanding local environments in the context of the global whole.
the people of the Americas had INCREDIBLE land management strategies that were interwoven with their cultural heritages
They also had a life expectancy of about 50 years and no methods for treating anything like cancer or sepsis or long-term debilitating conditions. My sister is Type 1 diabetic, she’d probably just be dead by 40.
I agree that we should have more respect for those that came before and the work they did that we are still benefitting from today (such as the selective breeding for crops you mentioned), but we can’t move forward by looking backward. The survival strategies of those past cultures don’t scale up to sustain 8 billion people, we need new methods supported by new technologies, better information and system-wide analysis.
Cool idea, also yeah I was just giving a totally random hypothetical. I didn’t want to touch on the greater Israel thing or other real world examples of group X wants group Y’s land.
Worse than every landlord I’ve had since 2010 how?
Fuck it, let em. I don’t own shit.
Do you have kids or any dependents by chance?
I don’t own any children.
I think I’d prefer to be evicted by the indigenous ous people William Mulholland fucked out of water for kind of no reason a century ago than blackrock capital. Again.
I mean dependents could also be a grandparent you’re caring for or a disabled sibling and so on and I’m not sure I would say people own their dependents.
Still. Fuck off with your racist bullshit. I’ve had a community before. I’ve cared about people. Some of them were the people you’re fucking talking about. You know they’re just, like, around? I could even be one of them! You would never know! Sorry if that complicates your shittyattempts to justify racism.
I’m not sure I said anything about race, much less racist. I gave a total hypothetical everyone seems to want to focus on more so than the point it was representing, guess I should have used something like aliens for the hypothetical. At any stretch you seem bothered and I hope you’re alright and if you’re not alright I hope you find peace.
Honestly? If we had an actual plan in place for where everyone would go i’d play along. I’ve never been to europe but it seems very nice.
I’m not exactly keen on the idea but I can’t deny that it would be pretty fair.
Man I really should have used a different hypothetical… people are really fixated on it specifically. Also I doubt most nations would be willing to take 10 to 100 million people and how do we pick apart the nationality of individuals who are mixed or don’t have records and so on.
Maybe because the US is an apartheid state and we are absolutely the bad guys
And yeah it wouldn’t be very feasible but I can’t argue against it morally.
We’re still moving away from the original point and regret even bothering to give a hypothetical example.
OK.
What happens when particular resources become necessary for public good?
That is, does the world in general have the right to extract the resources necessary to manufacture solar panels and grid-scale batteries &etc even if the local people object, because replacing fossil fuel power is a necessity for the survival of the human race entire?
What happens when acquiring and using a resource becomes a requirement for treating human life with value?
the mining of these resources must be done with respect and in cooperation with the people who would be harmed by doing so without respect and care. we must also take an approach of being considerate in our consumption habits, otherwise we’re just participating in eco-colonialism
That sounds great… on paper. A very Disney ending to the long story of international resource conflict.
It also doesn’t really address my question, which is:
What happens when the extraction of a resource is necessary, but the local people object? What if they refuse to cooperate?
What kind of resource is that, what makes it necessary, and to whom?
OK.
Copper. The answers to necessary and to whom should be self-evident.
Other examples would be the rare earths which China has done so much work to acquire control over, and also sand for concrete which is such a high-value commodity that it has developed a global black market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, complete with international organized crime groups, and has caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ah, well that makes it easy then. You leave the people the fuck alone, and let them go on with their lives.
Why? Because the necessity is to some rich cunt who needs to exploit the natural resources of an area they have no larger claim to than anyone else, as well as the labour of whoever they can coerce into working there, to extract further riches for themselves. It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is only a necessity from a capitalistic lens. We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
That is the problem with capitalism. It is inimical to life and humanity, and cares only for profit. Capitalism is the paperclip maximiser.
Refusing to manufacture solar panels because the people living over the whatever refuse to let us mine the whatever would lead to us burning more fossil fuels and killing the planet sooner, and it would even be worse for the people living above the whatever.
It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is a nonsensical point of view. If we’re going to get out of our current climate problems we need to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy sources as much and as quickly as possible. That’s going to mean more electrical infrastructure, more solar panels, more grid-scale battery systems, more wind turbines, more hydroelectric stations, etc., which in turn means more copper, steel, aluminum, silicon, and concrete.
Sure there’s profit motivation involved. It’s going to be a lot of fucking hard work and people gotta eat. But framing resource extraction for industrial use as only motivated by profit is so narrow-minded that this conversation can’t really continue until you take a few steps down from your high horse and adjust your extreme point of view to something more rational.
We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
There are already massive recycling industries in place for aluminum, steel, copper, and even lithium recovery from old batteries. Aluminum in particular is cheaper (more cost effective in terms of time and labor) to recycle than to mine and refine new ore. That’s great, but it still doesn’t produce enough volume of material, we still need more new material also.
There are also quarries that grind rock and old concrete down to make fine particles, but… it’s not the same as sand, it can’t be used in all of the same production processes. The result is more like very fine gravel than it is sand. There’s also an issue with a lot of concrete being reinforced with steel cables or rebar, which you can’t just throw into a rock grinder.
I don’t know why you’re talking about this as if it were all-or-nothing, that’s not a practical approach in the real world. It seems like you’re more interested in scoring holier-than-thou points than discussing actual solutions.
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Medical technology, for one thing. You can’t have modern medicine without electricity. Give up electricity and you drop life expectancy back to what it was in the early 1900s:
That’s an awful lot of human life.
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Methinks you have no real concept of what life was like 100 years ago.
It is an awful lot of human life, but it’s certainly not all human life, by any measure.
My tongue-in-cheek quip about human evolution was in response to your hyperbole about human existence being threatened.
Human existence is threatened. Just browse some of the articles at /c/climate@slrpnk.net :
France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
The world’s oceans are warming at a record-breaking pace
Climate change causing more species to go extinct in temperate regions, UA study shows
It’s hardly hyperbole. The environment we live in is actively disintegrating. The effects of the damage are accelerating, right now.
The most effective thing we can do to address the problem is increase renewable energy sources: What actually works — right here, right now — to address climate change
That means more copper, steel, aluminum and concrete, for the whole world, as quickly as we possibly can.
it should be dissolved
In acid.
No, that would lead to a massive explosion.
Most shit just dissolves in acid, it doesn’t explode.
Most shit isn’t violently basic.
Hell yeah let’s create a huge vacuum! Nothing bad could ever come of that
That’s why you organize the working classes beforehand. There isn’t a “delete the state instantly” button, all successful revolutions have happened with highly organized groups taking advantage of popular unrest to overthrow the old and replace with the new, be it the French Revolution, Russian, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc.
If you can organize the working classes that fully before violence, you have enough alignment to use democratic or other non-violent means to change the system.
The real problem is that it doesn’t matter if your end goal is violence or not - it’s that the current state will bring violence to you loooong before you are able to organize that sufficiently. Including villianizing you - which plans of violence and destabilization help them with.
You can’t say “we’ll organize first” because no you can’t.
You cannot actually use democratic means to change the system from within. Even with high levels of organization, you still have to smash the capitalist state apparatus. Organizing requires at least creating a disciplined party that is trusted and supported by the majority of the revolutionary class, as a party can do very little by itself. The party’s job is to educate, organize, and lead the rest of the revolutionary class, not to itself be the revolution.
You seem to be conflating capitalism with democracy. Which suggests you want some kind of authoritarian socialism or communism, which - no thank you. And now you are not talking about the ‘working class’, which definitely includes a vast majority so has no democratic barriers, but a ‘revolutionary class’ - ie, ‘the party’, a small group that seize power and oppress the rest ruthlessly. Again, no thank you. That is just trading one group of self-intrerested individuals with no restraints (who are psychopathic about it) for another group (who are ruthless zealots about it).
I’m not conflating capitalism with democracy, not at all. I want a socialist system, which is necessarily democratic. Parties are not distinct classes in and of themselves either, but are subsections of broader classes. For example, principals and teachers are both working class, even though the principal manages teachers. This is basic Marxist analysis.
historically this almost never works better than just fixing the system. You have a lot of range in “fixing” and we call it reform.
Capitalism cannot be “fixed,” its problems are inherent. Revolution happens when the old ruling class can no longer rule in the same way, and the working classes can no longer live as they could. Revolutions don’t happen for the sake of it.
To where can I immigrate with one of those fixed systems? I’ve got a disability and don’t make much money.
Launch the nukes! That will fix the shit out of everything.
- “no life = no problem”
Ghandi, probably
You are historically illiterate and dead wrong
Ah, the unbeatable “Nuh uh!” argument. Pack it up Dr. Moose, this one’s over.
Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence
You accusing people of being internally inconsistent on their view on the our broken system huh. I think we’re all pretty far past caring about that.
I dunno, I think most people are in favor of not dying to climate change
Why on earth do you think that? What behavior indicates this?
So world war against China?
What are you getting at, here? That world war against China would stop climate change? Or am I misreading you?
Since China is making most of the world’s solar panels at an alarming rate, if the majority of people do want to die to climate change then we might have to invade China to make them stop making solar panels.
Agreed! Cheap solar from China and the closure of the strait of Hormuz is dramatically ramping up green energy production and decoupling from oil.
If we could have an actual majority vote without extra layers, vote tampering, and the spoiler effect, then I wouldn’t need to make assumptions about what other people want!
If most people actually want fascism, then sorry not sorry.
How do you think a revolution starts?
Tbf, the system would be broken (in a functional sense) upon destruction. Cart before the horse with these statements, I suppose.
IMO the most pressing problem in the USA is that we have “consensus protocols” that can fail to achieve consensus. If the USA government was a software product, these would be considered massive bugs:
- The presence of both a House of Representatives and a Senate, and both bodies need to approve legislation with a majority in order for the legislation to become law. This is fundamentally broken, because there’s no guarantee that both houses will be controlled by the same party. Imagine if a database locked up because it had only 2 replicas, and if they ever became out of sync, all writes would stop, with no way to achieve a majority.
- The fact that the president can veto legislation. As above, this can result in a complete lockup of the government’s basic functionality, since there is no guarantee that Congress and the president are controlled by the same party.
- The electoral college. The fact that it is capable of installing as president the loser of the election is an obvious and massive flaw.
If we eliminated these bugs, then we would be able to achieve party-wise accountability; At the moment, when the House, Senate, and/or presidency are controlled by different parties, both parties can blame the other for inaction. In reality, the true problem is the fact that the Senate exists and that the President has veto power. If we had 1 democratic body (the House) and no Senate, then the party that controls the House would be directly accountable for its successes and failures, and I would expect American cynicism and apathy about “government not working” to decrease as a result.
You’re still citing for personalities and putting them in perfect position to be corrupt, essentially electing an aristocracy, rather than making decisions yourselves directly.
There are a thousand ways to be a democracy, but this isn’t one.
Easily testable: look for other nations that did things that way, what were the results? Are they what you expected?
Yeah, but these systems also act as corruption-prevention mechanisms.
They’re more like fault tolerant computations: if both bodies don’t agree on something, then that something must be flawed and should not be applied.
With only one democratic body, it might be faster to pass laws, but they would all be quite flawed because they would lack peer-review from an independent body…
In practice, its the two-party-only system and fptp that screws things up.
The electoral college is more of a equality-prevention mechanism. One vote in rural america, racist america if you will, is equal to ten in a city.
At the same time it was necessary for the federalization to happen in the first place. States wouldn’t sign up if there wasn’t an equal vote per state. It’s like the European Council - you probably wouldn’t get Slovenia to sign up to the EU, if Slovenia got half a vote while Germany got fifty votes. But if the EU progresses farther down the federalization path it will face the same thing where the states become less important and equal representation per state becomes stupid.
Tough problems, man.
One vote for who will ignore your complaints and oppose everything you care about so they can get an oil sinecure in two years. So important.
Stop voting for conservatives if you hate lip-service.
I did, and after two empty ballots I stopped registering.
it’s hard to know who to vote for if the Democrats and Republicans are both off the table
Elected aristocracy≠democracy
These are more symptoms than the actual problem, that the US is a dictatorship of capital.
Alright I like the way you think! Now perhaps let’s ahem apply that type of logic to companies? If we fix our corrupt companies they won’t be able to corrupt the government any more.
Could we at least “fix” a few of those responsible, though? A little side quest, ya know, for The People. ✊🏼 I’ve got just the vet, and they’re very affordable —might even probono it as a civic duty. 🫡
I have found this very effective device, capable of “fixing” any of those responsibe
I kinda looks like this:
I hear the cake hawkers there have the best around. 🤌🏼
this has been posted like - 6 times on here already >v<
I call dibs on posting it the 7th time
If the system wasn’t working for people with the power to change it, those people generally would change it until it suited their interests. More importantly, they’d try their damndest to keep it that way once it does.
maybe it’s my autisms but the way I see it, it can be fixed, just we would change it so much it would be unrecognisable. destroying and rebuilding it is how we fix it.
it just seems a semantic argument rather than an material one.
unless by “fixing it” they mean some useless symbolic change that doesn’t fix anything, and therefore shouldn’t count as a fix.
AI failed because humans doing the same (bad) work were cheaper when AI stopped being heavily subsidized.
Just think about it, a technology that automates work fails because humans are cheaper. System was not designed around the idea of humans being the cheapest part of the whole and it shows heavily. Humans were supposed to be this endlessly growing consumer base that works expensive jobs and can afford goods cheaply produced by automation. This did not happen. Population growth stagnated and reversed in many countries, humans became the cheapest part of economy while their purchasing power dwindled.
No system in history ever was built on such assumptions. Hell, even democracy assumed that average person works only so many hours, and spends considerable time a week on getting informed about political issues. Currently democracy is just herding overworked tired people into the voting booth and asks them to vote on something they had neither time nor energy to get informed on.
