"I can't endorse radical political change because the disruption would harm too many people."
-
"I can't endorse radical political change because the disruption would harm too many people."
Do you SEE the world we are in? Do you SEE how bad things are now & how much worse they are likely to get in the NEAR future?
More people slip below the poverty line, unable to feed themselves & their families, unable to access healthcare, abused by a system they are too poor to resist.
Immigrants (& those who would defend them) are abducted & imprisoned.
When is that disruption going to be enough?
-
"I can't endorse radical political change because the disruption would harm too many people."
Do you SEE the world we are in? Do you SEE how bad things are now & how much worse they are likely to get in the NEAR future?
More people slip below the poverty line, unable to feed themselves & their families, unable to access healthcare, abused by a system they are too poor to resist.
Immigrants (& those who would defend them) are abducted & imprisoned.
When is that disruption going to be enough?
Let's not forget the Black people (including INFANTS) murdered in cold blood—for whom we rarely get even the most meager semblance of "justice."
What amount of suffering, unrest, & violence would be worth resisting?
But perhaps more importantly, why do you envision resistance as purely disruptive?
Bringing the new world into being means dismantling the old systems, yes, but it also means creating new ones NOW, not sometime in the future.
-
Let's not forget the Black people (including INFANTS) murdered in cold blood—for whom we rarely get even the most meager semblance of "justice."
What amount of suffering, unrest, & violence would be worth resisting?
But perhaps more importantly, why do you envision resistance as purely disruptive?
Bringing the new world into being means dismantling the old systems, yes, but it also means creating new ones NOW, not sometime in the future.
Or perhaps a better way to put it: not all disruption is destructive.
Community gardens are disruptive to capitalism. Sharing food & clothes & other needed resources is disruptive. Reallocating public space for the public good is disruptive. Creating networks that help trans people access medical treatment they are being denied is disruptive.
We can BUILD things now.
Yes, the fash will try to tear them down. They always will.
But we can still build while we fight back.
-
Or perhaps a better way to put it: not all disruption is destructive.
Community gardens are disruptive to capitalism. Sharing food & clothes & other needed resources is disruptive. Reallocating public space for the public good is disruptive. Creating networks that help trans people access medical treatment they are being denied is disruptive.
We can BUILD things now.
Yes, the fash will try to tear them down. They always will.
But we can still build while we fight back.
@artemis Open source software is a huge threat to their plan to reduce us all to blithering idiots.
-
Or perhaps a better way to put it: not all disruption is destructive.
Community gardens are disruptive to capitalism. Sharing food & clothes & other needed resources is disruptive. Reallocating public space for the public good is disruptive. Creating networks that help trans people access medical treatment they are being denied is disruptive.
We can BUILD things now.
Yes, the fash will try to tear them down. They always will.
But we can still build while we fight back.
"Harm reduction" as a premise for policy is just the touchy-feely version of "lesser evil" for electoral politics. As an idea, it's like "of course yeah" but in practice it actually becomes the goal, replacing *harm elimination*.
Once you accept harm as a matter of course, it metastasizes and grows until policies *are actively harmful* but *less harmful* than they could be, and this is considered a win.
-
Or perhaps a better way to put it: not all disruption is destructive.
Community gardens are disruptive to capitalism. Sharing food & clothes & other needed resources is disruptive. Reallocating public space for the public good is disruptive. Creating networks that help trans people access medical treatment they are being denied is disruptive.
We can BUILD things now.
Yes, the fash will try to tear them down. They always will.
But we can still build while we fight back.
We're not going to first have the "revolution" & THEN try to sort things out & help people.
The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated.
Old systems must be torn down. Part of tearing them down is creating new ways of living.
Begin creating the world you want to live in NOW. Don't wait.
-
We're not going to first have the "revolution" & THEN try to sort things out & help people.
The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated.
Old systems must be torn down. Part of tearing them down is creating new ways of living.
Begin creating the world you want to live in NOW. Don't wait.
@artemis
"The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated."
-
We're not going to first have the "revolution" & THEN try to sort things out & help people.
The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated.
Old systems must be torn down. Part of tearing them down is creating new ways of living.
Begin creating the world you want to live in NOW. Don't wait.
This attitude that we can't try for radical change because people will be harmed by the disruption is a bit like the people who walk into a grocery store in America with bare shelves, take pictures, & say "this is what socialism creates."
You're literally looking directly at the harm that capitalistic, fascistic systems do & saying "oh no! Socialism is going to take away people's access to the things they need!"
It's already happening.
-
"Harm reduction" as a premise for policy is just the touchy-feely version of "lesser evil" for electoral politics. As an idea, it's like "of course yeah" but in practice it actually becomes the goal, replacing *harm elimination*.
Once you accept harm as a matter of course, it metastasizes and grows until policies *are actively harmful* but *less harmful* than they could be, and this is considered a win.
harm reduction is a term created by the movement to protect drug users from the harms their drug use can cause to themselves.
it's disgusting when it's used to talk about elections, because no one is talking about harm reduction for drug users while they're on the campaign trail.
Doug Ford has used the power of his office to increase harm to drug users and created a traumatising horror show in Ontario's most affected neighbourhoods. people like him don't give a fuck if children see public hard drug use while they're out with the family to buy bread. they don't care at all about the people now overdosing and dying on the street, leaving needles and broken glass pipes everywhere, taking up time and space with emergency resources that was prevented with the presence of safe consumption sites. now our already overworked hospital staff have an even larger workload, with longer waits in ER for everyone. the "voting is harm reduction" folks will say "see, you didn't vote and look what happened" as if they ever gave a single fuck about drug users in the first place.
-
"I can't endorse radical political change because the disruption would harm too many people."
Do you SEE the world we are in? Do you SEE how bad things are now & how much worse they are likely to get in the NEAR future?
More people slip below the poverty line, unable to feed themselves & their families, unable to access healthcare, abused by a system they are too poor to resist.
Immigrants (& those who would defend them) are abducted & imprisoned.
When is that disruption going to be enough?
@artemis they have no example of what disruption they're even talking about. it's a bluff so they can continue to pretend they want something different while really wanting no change at all.
-
This attitude that we can't try for radical change because people will be harmed by the disruption is a bit like the people who walk into a grocery store in America with bare shelves, take pictures, & say "this is what socialism creates."
You're literally looking directly at the harm that capitalistic, fascistic systems do & saying "oh no! Socialism is going to take away people's access to the things they need!"
It's already happening.
It's also the "first they came for" poem in action, but we don't recognize it when it's bureaucracy & systemic abuse rather than the actual Gestapo.
Other people are already living in the dark reality where the things they need to survive & thrive simply are withheld from them, but that reality will come for you too. We're just not there *yet*.
Do we really need to wait?
-
We're not going to first have the "revolution" & THEN try to sort things out & help people.
The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated.
Old systems must be torn down. Part of tearing them down is creating new ways of living.
Begin creating the world you want to live in NOW. Don't wait.
The revolution, ie the transition of political power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, will help people in and of itself. It's not all going to be mutual aid and doing food not bombs stuff though.
it's going to require political involvement, it's going to involve the democratic self organization of the people and the development of organized community defense on part of the people.
-
It's also the "first they came for" poem in action, but we don't recognize it when it's bureaucracy & systemic abuse rather than the actual Gestapo.
Other people are already living in the dark reality where the things they need to survive & thrive simply are withheld from them, but that reality will come for you too. We're just not there *yet*.
Do we really need to wait?
Niemöller's mistake was joining the nazis and believing that would save him. his poem takes on a very different look when you know the context.
-
The revolution, ie the transition of political power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, will help people in and of itself. It's not all going to be mutual aid and doing food not bombs stuff though.
it's going to require political involvement, it's going to involve the democratic self organization of the people and the development of organized community defense on part of the people.
@artemis the formation of mass movements and working class political parties, the forming of a multiracial, pluralistic coalition of the working class movements against the ruling class, etc
-
This attitude that we can't try for radical change because people will be harmed by the disruption is a bit like the people who walk into a grocery store in America with bare shelves, take pictures, & say "this is what socialism creates."
You're literally looking directly at the harm that capitalistic, fascistic systems do & saying "oh no! Socialism is going to take away people's access to the things they need!"
It's already happening.
@artemis that's what decades of fascist, anti-communist propaganda has done to peoples' minds. now they don't know what socialism is, they just think it's bad, and can't recognise fascism when they see it because they also don't know what that is.
-
We're not going to first have the "revolution" & THEN try to sort things out & help people.
The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated.
Old systems must be torn down. Part of tearing them down is creating new ways of living.
Begin creating the world you want to live in NOW. Don't wait.
@artemis THIS! I think the idea that you have to be a soldier or "criminal" to participate in revolutionary work is what holds a lot of people back.
Most of the groundwork for a new world is peaceful. We can be prosocial WHILE undermining the oppressive systems we operate under.
-
@artemis the formation of mass movements and working class political parties, the forming of a multiracial, pluralistic coalition of the working class movements against the ruling class, etc
@burnoutqueen
100%.One reason we know that it can't simply be peaceful is that when our peaceful efforts to help each other get in the way of the interests of capital, they send the police in to stop them. We will not be allowed to create our alternatives without a fight.
-
This attitude that we can't try for radical change because people will be harmed by the disruption is a bit like the people who walk into a grocery store in America with bare shelves, take pictures, & say "this is what socialism creates."
You're literally looking directly at the harm that capitalistic, fascistic systems do & saying "oh no! Socialism is going to take away people's access to the things they need!"
It's already happening.
@artemis As a white person who’s also doing okay financially, I do carry a certain anxiety about what real change will mean for me. Hitting the billionaire class where it hurts will hurt me. Or at least, it will if you still believe that money brings stability.
See that’s the kicker. We’ve been raised to believe and to trust in certain kinds of stability. Exactly those kinds of stability that large scale social change disrupts. Your bank account and 401k are only stability because we’ve built a system that relies on the individual having money. Having a bunch of money in the bank means you’ll be good for a while. And as a white person, we’re very much raised to assume and build that stability.
-
@artemis As a white person who’s also doing okay financially, I do carry a certain anxiety about what real change will mean for me. Hitting the billionaire class where it hurts will hurt me. Or at least, it will if you still believe that money brings stability.
See that’s the kicker. We’ve been raised to believe and to trust in certain kinds of stability. Exactly those kinds of stability that large scale social change disrupts. Your bank account and 401k are only stability because we’ve built a system that relies on the individual having money. Having a bunch of money in the bank means you’ll be good for a while. And as a white person, we’re very much raised to assume and build that stability.
@artemis But if you take a step back, real stability is having a roof over your head, food to eat, and friends to share it with. Those are all extremely local things. Those aren’t actually enhanced by money.
Landlords don’t provide housing, they charge for it. The maintenance guy at your apartment could still be the guy who fixes things and might even enjoy it more if he did it for his community and were actually appreciated instead of doing it for a poverty wage. Grocery stores don’t provide food, they pre-package it so you can’t have the feeling of individuality while some factory pre-breads your chicken.
At the end of the day, what we’re actually relying on is other people. The only thing capitalism provides is a framework that says that if you have enough money, you can coerce them into helping you with the offer of a Venmo transfer. That’s it. It’s not adding any more value than that. What actually takes care of you and adds value to your life is people.
-
We're not going to first have the "revolution" & THEN try to sort things out & help people.
The problem-solving & mutual help IS the revolution. They cannot be separated.
Old systems must be torn down. Part of tearing them down is creating new ways of living.
Begin creating the world you want to live in NOW. Don't wait.
that's the anti-communist propaganda of Lenin's "revolution", which the rest of the fascists have used as a scapegoat because Lenin called his so-called revolution "communist".
it was Lenin who said "after the revolution, when the state has whithered away".
