"I can't endorse radical political change because the disruption would harm too many people."
-
you don't have to be a "soldier" or "criminal". the state labels you as one to justify its brutal persecution of you as propaganda to the rest of society
@coolcalmcollected @artemis True, but that label will be applied to everyone no matter what, eventually. Starting a community garden is lower stakes for many people than other options and food security is absolutely an imperative.
-
@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.
@burnitdown @artemis "anarchists and communists disrupt my comfortable illusion that the current state of things is basically okay"
-
@coolcalmcollected @artemis True, but that label will be applied to everyone no matter what, eventually. Starting a community garden is lower stakes for many people than other options and food security is absolutely an imperative.
@coolcalmcollected @artemis Also "insane" is a label they have historically used to justify psychiatric incarceration as a way to bypass the justice system and the human rights the courts often impose.
Which is why I find the sudden expansion of involuntary "care" being pushed in all provinces in Canada right now so incredibly concerning (am "Canadian").
-
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.
If I could make everyone in the USA read something right now, it would be "From dictatorship to democracy" by Gene Sharp
He talks about this in that essay
(it's an essay published as a novella)
-
If I could make everyone in the USA read something right now, it would be "From dictatorship to democracy" by Gene Sharp
He talks about this in that essay
(it's an essay published as a novella)
@c0debabe
Ooh. Added to my "to read" list! -
@c0debabe
Ooh. Added to my "to read" list!@artemis I still hate everything happening but I have a much better understanding of what is at play and what needs to be done.
-
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.
I read it as he knows this from experience.
-
I read it as he knows this from experience.
yes, he does, because he joined the nazis believing that would save him. that's not an opinion, that's what he really did.
-
Oh I know. He really did the practical demonstration of not speaking out, and when he finally did, the response damn near killed him, as it had so many others, Nazi and innocent alike.
-
@artemis So ...love thy neighbor, but be ready to flip some tables?
-
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.
-
"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 The “people” who would be harmed are the ones with giant bank accounts and investment portfolios, and the “harm” they’d experience is having smaller bank accounts and investment portfolios. These are the only ones that the ownership class see as people.
-
If I could make everyone in the USA read something right now, it would be "From dictatorship to democracy" by Gene Sharp
He talks about this in that essay
(it's an essay published as a novella)
In case you enjoy audiobooks, this work and some of Sharp's other books are available for free on Librivox
-
"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@dice.camp while I understand the sentiment, you have to understand that most people (including you, according to most sociologists and psychoanalysis) are not motivated by the best interest of others.
If there's even a chance that you could have something that others don't, chances are you're inclined towards a system that has haves and have-nots rather than haves with no have-nots. This is not true in every situation, of course, but we are by default wired towards this system. I think there's a physiological component to this, something like survival of the fittest hard-wired into our brains.
So, I don't think this framing is convincing to non-leftists. Of course we recognize that this system could be beneficial. But, here's food for thought. I'm not trying to be patronizing, I just want to take your 100% true comment and consider an alternative framing:
Something FDR did was, in a single fell swoop, provided public services AND well paying jobs for people. The TVA brought electricity and water to tons of people, and employed a ton of people. Such social programs benefited the individual and were widely popular because, I mean, c'mon. "What if you could bring life saving technology and precious clean water to thousands of people, and get paid for it?"
The sweeter the juice, the sweeter the squeeze, I guess.
If you notice Zoran's framing of things, it always begins and ends with "hey, we're going to give YOU a better deal" and then he literally does. Every time. -
"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 When is that disruption going to be enough? When it extends to disrupting the social life of the mega-rich.
The mega-rich assume that of course bad things befall others, that this is the reason to be rich. Some bad things will always happen, but money signals virtue, and purchases a meritorious right to be the one allowed to buy their way out.
Tales of great woe do not impress them but rather reminds them that they did the right thing in clawing to the top and then claiming that it was hard work or contribution that got them there. This lets them rest. And the propagation of this myth, that money measures virtue is then pushed on others as a way of saying not-so-gently, if you lack money, you lack virtue, worth, and contribution.
But in any case, tales of woe do not surprise or shake their world view, they confirm their world view. They did not need to be told these things. They assumed these things. They are not prompted to think differently by mounting pain, they are ever more confident that their original analysis was correct.
What MIGHT shake their world view is if money does not buy something they're used to it buying, whether it's a tangible object, a service, entry to a country, or just the adoring respect of the public. These things don't seem as dire to most of us as the death and suffering of others, but only because we're not seeing things from their point of view.
-
@artemis When is that disruption going to be enough? When it extends to disrupting the social life of the mega-rich.
The mega-rich assume that of course bad things befall others, that this is the reason to be rich. Some bad things will always happen, but money signals virtue, and purchases a meritorious right to be the one allowed to buy their way out.
Tales of great woe do not impress them but rather reminds them that they did the right thing in clawing to the top and then claiming that it was hard work or contribution that got them there. This lets them rest. And the propagation of this myth, that money measures virtue is then pushed on others as a way of saying not-so-gently, if you lack money, you lack virtue, worth, and contribution.
But in any case, tales of woe do not surprise or shake their world view, they confirm their world view. They did not need to be told these things. They assumed these things. They are not prompted to think differently by mounting pain, they are ever more confident that their original analysis was correct.
What MIGHT shake their world view is if money does not buy something they're used to it buying, whether it's a tangible object, a service, entry to a country, or just the adoring respect of the public. These things don't seem as dire to most of us as the death and suffering of others, but only because we're not seeing things from their point of view.
@kentpitman wrote:
«What MIGHT shake their world view is if money does not buy something they're used to it buying»Fifty years ago, in the lyrics of a song called Bastille Day, Neil Peart wrote:
"Power isn't all that money buys."
Of course, revolutions tend to eat their own children, but that isn't what might stop a revolution. -
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
