Who could have guessed that the rich white South African would turn out to be a white supremacist?
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 127
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 127
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
That's super dumb. Also, I thought there weren't 3rd party Reddit apps anymore? Do you not still have to pay for the API?
Are there still any non-boomers left on Facebook?
It probably depends on the accent, but we say "Double U".
I've watched a few older original movies here and there on streaming at home, but I guess the last time I went to the theater for one was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I don't really go to the theater much in general anymore. Last time I went was for Dune 2 (mostly because I like the director more so than I'm interested in the franchise) and it was so loud I thought it was going to damage my eardrums.
That aside, if I'm gonna go see something, I want some reason that isn't just brand recognition. A director I like, some good reviews, maybe an interesting premise, etc.
External hostility often pushed socialist regimes toward authoritarian measures. For example, the USSR faced significant opposition from capitalist countries, which influenced its militarization and political centralization. This external pressure created a siege mentality that undermined the potential for democratic governance.
This is something that I wish more people who talked about this would acknowledge and engage with. I get it, authoritarianism isn't good. It's not like we want that. It's not the goal. But it's really easy to sit on the sidelines from a relatively cushy life in the imperial core and judge all the people out there who are dealing with the historical reality of colonialism and feudalism and the current reality of imperialism. They are actively engaged in the practical task of liberating themselves from forces, both external and internal (old power structures/privileges) that seek to violently return them to a condition of servitude. The decisions they made have to be viewed through the lens of that context.
That doesn't mean we can't discuss and criticize them, but it's worth engaging in the nuance of the history rather than out of hand dismissing their attempts as inherently illegitimate, evil, and/or misguided. What were the conditions they were operating under? What dangers did they face? Were their actions the best strategy for achieving the future they wanted? Was what they gave up too great? Did they have the capability to take a more open path? Have/had their decisions irreparably led them astray or were/are they still on the path to that eventual communist society on some time scale?
If you think they're wrong for what they did, you still have to be able to answer the question of how you protect your revolution from forces that will spy on you, sabotage your industry, fund right wing militias to terrorize people, sanction and blockade you, or even invade you? Or if you think the path wasn't even violent revolution in the first place, what is your answer to how you get to where you want to be when the power structure that would need to allow this is also invested in not allowing this? It's a bit harder to see how this is made difficult or even impossible in liberal "democracies," but it should be uncontroversial to acknowledge that some kind of force was necessary to escape from illiberal systems like Feudalism in Russia/China or from colonial regimes like in Vietnam.
The one thing I'd push back on from your comment is about the welfare states of Europe. That's not really what socialism is about. They've made life better for people in their own country, yes, but it's on the backs of those exploited in the third world. That's why communism is inherently internationalist. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." You need to be able to build a movement that can work to lift everyone up with you, or at least not drag them down for your own benefit. I'd be interested to have more of a discussion on this, but that's the standpoint I'd start from.
That’s the neat part, there isn’t!
But being more serious: I think I can express the feeling of things being particularly worse now in a way that isn’t just recency bias.
Sure, over time technology has improved and that’s generally speaking allowed for better standards of living, at least for the people at the right end of that technology. (Not so great if you’re being conquered because someone shows up with guns for example.) So you could look at the past and say it was worse because materially things like food availability and medicine have become better over time.
But key to this was that all of this was a struggle of humans over nature. To the extent things were bad, there were tangible things we could do to improve.
These days, so many of our problems are self-inflicted and technology and economic development mostly makes them worse. Climate change is the obvious big one, but then there’s stuff like:
- Weapons have become increasingly destructive and centrally usable. A small number of people can cause a lot more damage than they ever could in the past.
- Surveillance technology invades our privacy in a way that’s unprecedented in human history.
- Automation, communications, and transportation technology have made workers less and less powerful and therefore more subject to abuse and artificial poverty. This is one of the more messed up things about capitalism. Technology gets better and rather than getting the benefits of that progress, it actually hurts a lot of people.
- Advances in science and technology, particularly data science, allow the powerful to hyper-optimize the bad things they were always doing or enables them to do things they’ve wanted to do.
- A financialized economy creates economic catastrophes where people go homeless or starve without any actual changes to material conditions. The numbers got screwed up or the investors panicked and now everything sucks for no reason?
- More generally, we can produce enough of the necessities of life for everyone, but capitalism ensures that those necessities won’t make it to people. Capitalism depends on scarcity. If you had a house you wouldn’t need to pay a landlord. If you had food you wouldn’t need to pay food companies. If you had both you wouldn’t need to go work and put up with awful conditions. We’ve solved our most fundamental problems and yet because of the interests of the system and those in power, that progress gets held back.
In the past, even if things were rough now, you could maybe look forward to them improving. Now it feels like the walls are closing in. Unless we actively do something about it, things are going to get worse for most people as more and more wealth accumulates in private hands, as we become subject to increasingly powerful forms of control, and as the powerful destroy the environment we need to live.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Not spicy. Everyone knows nuclear power is lemon-lime flavored.
- JumpRemoved
I know, I know, but…
“I know, I know, but it was this or we’d have to stop bombing brown people and tell the poors we’d give them food. It was the politically responsible thing to do.”
The trains were just keeping with the metaphor of the OP. (Although we do need much better trains too.)
Acting like the only thing wrong is train schedules is really reductive. People who insist on voting as THE prime form of political participation will often say that not voting for a lesser evil is a privileged position because you're not going to be impacted by the stuff the other party will do. But I'd argue there is an inherent privilege to being someone who won't be materially impacted by US imperialism.
We've all been conditioned to view the violence the government inflicts on the rest of the world as normal. Maybe you don't agree with it, but only as much as you don't agree with, say, tax policy. It's an abstract thing. We're removed from the constant horror it represents. We'd like it if it wasn't happening, but we don't have to think about it most of the time and will clearly not do anything about it any time soon if everyone left of Hitler's position is "vote for the Hitler that's only going to do the bad stuff to other people."
In general I take issue with people framing this as protecting democracy from fascism. The US is not a democracy.
- For starters, a constitutional democracy shouldn't be able to end through a simple vote that doesn't even include most of the country. If voting in fascists is an acceptable outcome of the system, it's not a good system.
- From the ground up, the US was built to be as anti-democratic as possible while still technically having voting. Obviously it started with only land owning white men being allowed to vote. It's expanded slowly over the years, but it STILL explicitly disenfranchises people such as prisoners. The electoral college, gerrymandered congressional districts, and the longer, staggered term limits in the senate, and the lifetime term limit for supreme court justices are all mechanisms which were explicitly designed to filter out the will of the masses from influencing government. To bring in a personal example: I live in NY. My vote doesn't matter. I don't say that as an excuse for not voting because I know I won't have an effect of the election. I say that because I don't even get a vote! Even if there was a candidate I cared about, just because of where I was born I can have zero influence on their election into government.
- Finally, I'd argue that an imperialist country is definitionally not a democracy. The core principle of democracy is that the government rules over only those who have consented to it. An imperialist state such as the US takes actions all around the world in other sovereign countries that have major influences on people who never consented to be subjects of US power. An Iraqi who's house got bombed didn't get a chance to vote against Bush. A person in Latin America didn't get a vote on the US invalidating the vote in their country with a coup. Cubans, Vietnamese, etc. didn't get to vote on the US making sure they couldn't trade with the rest of the world.
As a related point to the last point: This is why I think it's philosophically wrong to vote for candidates who don't represent you in the US elections. In a democracy you are still considered to have "consented" to being governed even by an opposition party you didn't vote for because you consented to the process. By voting you are saying that you agree that this is the way we will choose our government and that you will abide by the results even if you don't get the outcome you want. That's fine if the process was truly democratic and you can live with any of the outcomes even if you'd prefer something different. But if all outcomes are systematically unacceptable to you and the process itself is flawed, then still casting your vote within that framework is consent to the government and the process that produced it. When you go vote, there's no box for "I'm only voting for this person because they're technically better than the other one. I'm not actually ok with them." You simply vote for Harris and the implicit choice of "I will not try to enact change in any other way."
If you think Trump represents the rise of fascism and the end of democracy, then you shouldn't be willing to abide by the results of the election anyway. But could you imagine any of the people telling you to vote against fascism taking up arms to storm the capital to protect that democracy and it's people? Could you even imagine those people symbolically supporting leftists if they did this? I can't. Because they didn't do shit last time. Because they spent years talking about the right wing coup attempt in terms of it being treason rather than it being a problem because they're fascists. Because civility and rules are more important than anything else to these people. If Trump won, the day after the election the same people who said it'd be the end of democracy will be saying "We'll get em' in 2-4 years."
No. Clearly the solution is to continue to abandon anyone outside the US because they don't matter. /s
But more directly: HOW are you going to work on it? Who is gonna do that? The capitalist/imperialist who you've pledged your vote to unconditionally?
...and you'll be doing so with someone who is slightly more likely to be concerned with their image, and hence slightly more likely to listen.
Why would they be concerned with their image if people are going to vote for them anyway? We have a candidate who supports literal genocide and that's not bad enough for people to do something. What exactly, precisely, practically, is the mechanism for holding a politician accountable when you will always vote for them and won't take any actions outside the electoral system?
We're here because people keep supporting a broken system. We keep getting elections with gerrymandering and candidates that don't represent people because people are unwilling to take action outside of them or even exercise that power in its most basic form. Even if you maintain that things are genuinely good when Democrats win (we'll circle back on that one), it's such a brittle system. Any progress that has been made can be wiped out every few years due to elections which have been gerrymandered to create the 50/50 coin-flip when the actual population doesn't support the right at nearly that rate. Plus, because of the messed up process of supreme court appointments, we sometimes lose rights even when Democrats are in office because of a fundamentally undemocratic institution. You could argue that's all the more reason to have voted against Republicans in the past and why we should vote against them now, but once again: In a system that is supposedly based on constitutional protections, why are our rights contingent on the random time an old judge kicks the bucket? Or the supposedly illegal actions of a president?
Because there's nothing to actually stop any of it. Rights are hard to establish and enforce and really easy to be taken away or ignored. Republicans will "break the rules" and then Democrats will decide to be bound by not only the rules their "opponents" won't follow, but by the new rules that come out of their actions. If you truly believe your opponents are fascists, and you're genuinely opposed to that, then nothing should be off the table for resisting them. At the tamest end of things the least they could have tried to do would be to break the power of the court or anti-majoritarian rules in the legislature. But again, if rules don't matter to fascists, you should be willing to go way further than that to stop them. Instead, the "#resistance" under Trump largely consisted of tweets, protest signs, and a call to vote differently in 2-4 years while simultaneously questioning if we'd even have an election to vote in. If Trump wins are liberals going to get out there and do something about it? Are they going to storm the capital to boot out the fascists? Fight cops and feds from taking away minorities? No. That's way too "uncivil" for them. We're just gonna have to vote harder next time!
And if only all we had to talk about were the trains being on time!
Circling back to how things are under Democrats: Sure, maybe they're a bit nicer to minorities publicly, but we still get:
- An ever expanding military, police, and surveillance state. Bush might have started the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and enacted the Patriot act, but Obama continued the wars, including the torture and indefinite detention he said he'd end. We also learned about the NSA's mass surveillance program under Obama and when confronted with the public outcry about an assault on our fundamental rights or the war crimes being committed by the military, he chose to go after whistleblowers instead of doing anything about it. Since then has ANY president or major presidential candidate even talked about the NSA or given any indication that they'd cut back on surveillance or imperialism? In my lifetime over 3 Democratic and 2 Republican administrations, the military budget has tripped. And of course support for Israel's genocide has continued with little more than hand wringing and empty promises.
- Anti-immigration policies continued under Obama and Biden. Biden in particular continued the detention centers and even allowed for the wall to keep being built.
- Climate legislation that isn't good enough to meet the existential threat posed by the problem. Far from being "something is better than nothing," these compromise positions obstruct efforts to implement the necessary changes. Plus whatever "advancements" are put in place tend to be fairly temporary in nature. A regulation can be easily overturned by a future administration or court. It's a lot harder to go around destroying public transportation and clean energy infrastructure after it's already been built. We are facing a global crisis and the system is going to get us all killed eventually, and poorer countries even sooner.
There are a lot of people who are hurt by US capitalism and imperialism even under Democratic administrations. It's a decision to not value those people. And it's not even like they're always different people. The surveillance state hurts everyone, but in particular it makes it easier for the government to target undesirable groups like immigrants, LGBT people, or say, women who want to get an abortion. There are certainly LGBT people, disable people, women, PoCs, etc amongst those the US has bombed, sanctioned, or caused to live in chaos after a coup. Lack of adequate healthcare means that accessing abortions or gender affirming care harder even if they are completely legal.
But don't worry, just vote for the Democrat then push them to the left! By... uh... holding up signs? Making tweets? You definitely need to unconditionally vote for them again next time, so you can't pressure them that way.
It's ok, next election we'll talk about the trains the military, surveillance state, healthcare, the environment, etc.
4 years later: "THIS election is super important. We'll talk about the trains in another 4 years."
Because President's Day is for buying stuff. Clearly what we need is to allow stores to set up in polling places to get it to be a holiday. /s
Little known fact that dogs have a very unhealthy work culture. He didn’t even think it would be an option to go out before the work was done.
Mine is that in Star Trek, at least all the computers advanced enough to be used on a starship are actually sentient. At some point you have enough self aware hologram programs and rogue AIs that you should start to wonder if they’re actually anomalous.
I know you're joking and that there's a lot of garbage videos out there, but what possible value would there be in sending a novel per second? Can anyone read a novel per second? It only makes sense to use the higher bandwidth to send higher density information like video, audio, or interactive media like games.
Tis the season for floating stuff in drinks. Summer by contrast is the season for putting stuff on the glass of your drink.
I’d fund some dream MMO. Those things are bottomless money pits.