- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or # to comment.
Either way, change is needed. And electing a fascist is going to make change more difficult.
Idk, “after Hitler, our turn” worked out good for those people last century
You mean it worked out for the people he didn’t eradicate
This was sarcasm. It in fact was not them after Hitler because he was a dictator who killed them. The idea that we should sit out this election to punish Dems is fucking idiotic because fascist authoritarians tend to clean house of people they dislike.
Would you rather push a boulder up a hill… or up a sheer cliff face while stormtroopers at the top are shooting at you and rounding up everyone who could help and putting them in camps?
Exactly. Thank you.
Kamala is a fascist currently committing genocide.
Trump is also fascist.
The system is working exactly as intended and must be destroyed.
Trump wants to get rid of your ability to choose. Kamala doesn’t.
Trump wants them to ramp up the collateral damage. He WILL make it worse. Kamala wants a ceasefire.
If you want the system to change, vote for Kamala and then convince people it needs to change.
That puts you in the top image of the meme saying “the system is broken and must be fixed”
But I’ve been here before which is why I’m in the bottom image.
There is no “vote for lesser evil then work from the inside to make change” All that leads to is an even worse lesser evil next time around
There is no “vote for lesser evil then work from the inside to make change” All that leads to is an even worse lesser evil next time around
That’s literally what happens when you break the system. You think it’s going to get better when Trump has no restrictions? Or when the next Republican is actually malevolent instead of just petty and opportunistic?
trump has restrictions?
Fewer every day.
No political system is perfect. Ever.
They require constant vigilance. They require battling. Human greed is capable of corrupting every system that a human mind can create.
Anyone that tells you they have a perfect political system that would never need fixing is a liar, an idiot, or both.
“Revolution only ever results in a change of masters”
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
“Revolution only ever results in a change of masters”
Haiti would like to talk to you.
Slavery finished, replaced with forced labour and serfdom? That Haiti?
I’m not sure why you’re arguing in favour of literal slavery, but ok. There are other examples:
- Bavaria in 1919
- Spain with the CNT/FAI in the 1930s
- The 1905 revolution in Russia, along with the 1917 revolution
I’m not arguing for slavery, you’re misunderstanding the quote. I didn’t say the change of masters was inherently no better than the previous masters.
Revolution is always, in every example, a doorway for powerhungry authoritarians to swoop in.
The fact that Haitians were eventually much better off than as slaves doesn’t change that.
Revolution is always, in every example, a doorway for powerhungry authoritarians to swoop in.
I disagree. Like I said: CNT/FAI Catalonia, 1919 Bavaria and anarchist Ukraine are counterexamples.
If a revolution is thorough enough to eradicate the hierarchical structure of oppression, it doesn’t have to be used by authoritarians.
Ok, why not create a human system that’s not succeptible to greed by introducing usufruct property relations?
I read up on it, but I’m not sure how that’s immune to greed. Are you able to explain?
There’s a limit on how much stuff you can “own” and actually use. If you don’t use it, you don’t own it anymore.
usufruct
So… reading the Wikipedia article on it for more info, it doesn’t seem to place any limits on what you can own. It simply lets you makes allowances for others to use something of yours. It doesn’t seem to mention forfeiting unused property in the least.
It’s basically just being a landlord, but with other stuff, no? I’m not following how this isn’t corruptible unless there’s something I’m missing.
This paragraph is vital:
A usufruct is either granted in severalty or held in common ownership, as long as the property is not damaged or destroyed.
This means that most things aren’t owned by one person (legal or natural).
Being a landlord is based on the third property relation:
The third civilian property interest is abusus (literally abuse), the right to alienate the thing possessed, either by consuming or destroying it (e.g., for profit), or by transferring it to someone else (e.g., sale, exchange, gift).
Abusus isn’t only about destroying, but also about keeping something from being used (A landlord can keep me from living in their house, unless I pay them).
If you don’t have the abusus right, you simply can’t keep others from using things. Which is why most property would be held in common. Think of it like a big library for everything. Not only books, but bikes, pots and pans, tools, furniture and accomodations.
Grabbed the podcast! More detail never hurts. Much appreciated.
Anyone who tells you that thinks they’d profit from that new system.
Maybe, but “profit” can mean “just lead a basic live with basic dignities instead of being in abject poverty”
And I think social democracy (which we need to fix) is the answer to that.
I think a lot of people like to LARP they’re the rebel alliance that’re going to defeat the evil empire and the ewoks will celebrate, not remembering the last few times the ewoks ended up first on the trains (purges, holodomor, GLP/CR, Khmer Rouge).
At the end of the day, in power structures, without a firm mechanism to counter, the most evil people generally rise to the top. Very familiar with this in my actual life experience which I’m going to guess most MLs don’t have.
For instance, after the McD merger, marketing and finance execs slowly displaced engineers at the top and steered the companies away from doing their jobs and towards what you could call “ideological purity”, ie short-term cash at any cost. Intel was similar, as was the USSR and PRC.
In the west, those companies are a smaller part of a whole, and if things go properly, they fail, an example is made, hopefully new management is brought in to replace them and recover the company.
In an authoritarian regime the whole country sinks or swims, hence NK is screwed. Russia actually had a great renaissance under Khrushchev, who helped recover most of the worst damage wrought by Stalin, until the idiot Brezhnev struck for ideological purity again and destroyed all that work. Gorbachev looked to be trying to fix that, but it was far too late.
Communists fail because they demand all eggs be under one basket, and as Rome showed us, you can have good Emperors, you can’t have unlimited good emperors, sooner or later you’ll get a political moron like Brezhnev or Xi and everything will fall to pieces.
It’s why capitalists go on and on and on about “diversifying your portfolio” so no one bet ever kills you.
And I think social democracy (which we need to fix) is the answer to that.
Most of Europe has a social democracy. Let’s just say: it’s not going too well. Especially when considering the rise of far right talking points (Looks at France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, …).
I’m brown and live in Europe and America, it’s going fine, a hell of a lot better than anywhere else, particularly the shithole that is CCP’s China.
Taiwan is doing pretty well though.
Austria is on the brink of going Hungary and the “progressive” coalition in Germany is gladly copying the far right’s homework.
I also don’t like China’s governmet. Not sure why you bring it up.
The far right keeps trying to take over, and keeps collapsing into its own incompetence immediately after.
They know longer know how to rule and modern parliamentary systems make them much less able to govern.
Germany will be a disaster, their economy is finished for at least a decade, but that’s … not terribly serious, they’ll re-form after a while, hopefully after we’ve fixed the EU.
Yeah that latter one is a bit fantastic, but considering how much room there is for change right now we actually could have some things get better.
Austria has been flirting with the far-right my whole life, the strain runs REALLY deep.
If America goes Trump then things could get very dark, but otherwise I’m pretty sure we’ll manage to figure things out over the next decade, things are still vastly better in both Europe and America than anywhere else and while people don’t like it, they’ll be less happy with the alternatives.
I’ve come back around to the thought that even by the metric of working as intended, the system is broken
Yep the current capitalist world order benefits infinite extracting moneyed interests by mass exploitation and it must be completely destroyed.
I prefer the term “technofeudalism”
The purpose of a system is what it does
deleted by creator
Any solution that starts with purges is bad.
It’s harder to build something than to destroy it. I’d you destroy a system with nothing to replace it, the rich and powerful will swoop into the power vacuum and gobble up more.
This is very true. It has happened so many times.
One example of the top of my head: the collapse of the USSR.
yep, violent revolution rarely ends with better conditions for the people
Apart from you very ignorant take:
Who do you think makes revolutions turn violent? The revolutionaries, or the people trying to stop them?
It was me. I was the destroyed system. /s
Like what happened in every capitalist crisis in the last 70 years? O.o
Purges?
When we taking (this) system?
You talking about the ruling class (defined by its ownership of all things)?
(Either way a purge would be just taking away things they shouldn’t own anyway)I don’t think purging by political affiliation would directly change modern western systems, so dismantling such system isn’t by color, it’s ruling class vs everyone & everything else.
I’m thinking more about the plurality of Americans that aren’t on board, for whatever stupid reason. Until they are convinced, destroying the system won’t really stick, if it’s even possible.
What does that have to do with “starting with purges”?
How are you dealing with those people? Converting them is incredibly time consuming, and has to be done individually.
Wouldn’t stick, but it would still take a century to get as bad is it currently is.
Maybe, unless the replacement is immediately worse based on who seizes control. It’s the devil you know vs the one you don’t.
No - I was saying that if you change the ruling class without changing the system the power again gets distributed a bit more evenly manner (eg USA 70 years ago vs USA today - same shit but slightly better wealth distribution).
Ofc not modifying the system just means the incentives & rules don’t change so you end up with same problems (or same magnitude of problems that never fully went away).
Again USA example, if everyone with over 10m moneys got that surplus distributed to others (fair-ish or not, ofc not perfect) nobody would immediately seize power, megacorps would get new management, politicians would be less sponsored, people had better lives & more free time & options (which includes getting involved in politics, actively or by voting, & seeking a job they enjoy).
Changing the system (so not what described immediately above) however would be a question if for a better system or if its just a power grab.
Careful, you’re going to make a lot of the dotworld liberals very upset with this one.
Welp
There is no perfect system, every system needs to be fought over, lest it gets overtaken by those working against you. Destroying the current system also destroys every benefit you already fought for.
Getting rid of monarchy famously destroyed all the benefits that enlightenment brought the people. /s
Yeah, and as we all know it goes very smoothly with no long running issues. France in the early 1790s was a great place for all, if memory serves.
So… are you pro or anti monarchy…? O.o
Anti-monarch, but anti-accellerationist too. I’m sure you can see what part I was responding to.
Destroying systems isn’t necessarily accelerationist.
Maybe not a necessity, but it’s there much more often than not.
Everyone talks about destroying the system, but not nearly as much about the systems that are to be built in its place or how to transition between them without mass violence that is wanted and encouraged by accelerationists to take down the system. Sure, community self defence networks help, but you’re still at the mercy of whatever shithead takes the reigns in the inevitable power vacuum. Especially if you can’t make/keep a large enough coalition to keep everything from falling apart into everyone’s personal fiefdom.
How are people supposed to solve these issues if they don’t feel like the current system is beyond reform? Defending the status quo will bring us nowhere.
“Destroying” has a pretty obvious connotation.
The connotationof fundamental critique? That the system is beyond reform? I’m not sure what you mean, so it can’t be that obvious.
Most monarchies didn’t get ‘destroyed’ and most peasants living under monarchies didn’t have much to lose to begin with. The world is much more interconnected now.
… just because the world is more interconnected doesn’t state anything about how much the people have to lose. Inequality in income is ridiculously high rn.
Yeah, it’s not late stage capitalism, it’s peak capitalism.
Damn ozma, hittin’ hard.
Yeah, but if you want to destroy the system you need to have the military on your side, and they won’t be, which means you’ll need to actually defeat them, which isn’t likely, unless you take a lot of bases… with an already existing trained force… all at exactly the same time… with a huge force… of loyal, extremely secretive, organized, huge, military…
Look, maybe if you’re A LOT more politically involved. Like running for office involved and you really work those wheels of progress things can gradually be improved. Seems less fantastical.
Capitalism will never be destroyed. Too many settlers would rather be in the middle class than stop it.
