You must log in or register to comment.
Precisely
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
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
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/[email protected] :
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.
historically this almost never works better than just fixing the system. You have a lot of range in “fixing” and we call it reform.
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
this has been posted like - 6 times on here already >v<
I call dibs on posting it the 7th time
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. 🤌🏼
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Hell yeah let’s create a huge vacuum! Nothing bad could ever come of that
Counter-point; the State was created through a messy compromise between those who believed in democracy and freedom, and those who emphatically did not. They created a useful tool, we can take that tool, file the edges down so it stops hurting people, and then put it to use making things better for everyone but a select few rich assholes who have committed serious crimes to become rich assholes.
The other option, destruction of the state, means unleashing chaos, death, and destruction on everyone as assholes try to fill the power vacuum with violence, setting themselves up as warlords and pretenders to the throne.
The counter-counter point is that if your particular State was not created as such a compromise, and there’s no avenue for the People to have a voice in their government, then it is a moral imperative to express your voice in other ways, even if the State decides to kill you for it.
Seize the State, use as legitimate of means as possible, but seize it non-the less. It’s self-defense.
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution, that has been done before.
Seize the State, use as legitimate of means as possible, but seize it non-the less. It’s self-defense.
The state has a monopoly of violence, what would stop it from just becoming yet another liberal oligarchy?
Okay, first, the State has never been eliminated cleanly. Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy, never has it been destroyed without complete societal collapse.
And two, one part of the “filing the edges off” is putting in safeguards. We know a fuckload more now about how to functionally create a more stable democracy than we did when this whole power by the people for the people thing first kicked off.
Unless the goal is to create a messy 12-sided civil war, then you can just destroy the state and hope you live long enough to regret it. i.e. look at Syria.
The most fucked up part is that 90% of the people in a civil war just want to go about their lives, but the assholes won’t let them, so they have to arm up or else get murdered by those who kicked the whole thing off in the first place.
Control has passed peacefully from a dictatorship to democracy,
Liberal oligarchy does not qualify as democracy.
If the people have a voice, then there’s a path forward.
I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand, but then again. I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
If the people have a voice,
And what does this “voice” matter in a liberal oligarchy? Doesn’t seem to me that it’s influencing anything…
I’ve seen what the fascists have done to the education systems of the world.
You haven’t seen squat. And, considering that you came here from .world, I don’t even think you’d know what a fascist is if one where to bite you on the arrse.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice” is “the people have no voice”.
No voice means dictatorship, or monarchy if the first fucker puts their spawn on the throne, Vanguard Party is the same shit, a dictatorship by another name.
Dictators, kings, oligarchs, would be dictators, fascists, conservatives, tankies, and anyone else who would deny a person a voice in their government are all the same sort of person as well.
They say their voice matters more than anyone else’s, and will often use violence to enforce it.
That’s what I see in a lot of people. Especially people who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence on people without understanding that they want a power vacuum where the bloodthirstiest bastard around will see an opportunity.
News flash, the only other option besides “the people have a voice”
Then show me how your voice matters. Shouldn’t be too difficult, right?
conservatives,
Oh, sooo… liberals?
who want to start a bloody civil war so that they can force a stateless existence
Sooo… like Makhno?
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution, that has been done before.
Er, for example?
This is the first thing that came to mind
That wasn’t clean, or successful, as much as I wish it had been.
Nestor Makhno is a personal hero, he was building a new State in an area where the previous State had been ripped away. He was ultimately unsuccessful, mostly due to the fact that he was a single faction fighting for control in a messy civil war. In the end, the totalitarian dictator won, and people like Nestor Makhno are either exiled or executed by the new State.
After siding with the Bolsheviks during the Ukrainian–Soviet War, the Makhnovists were driven underground by the Austro-German invasion and waged guerrilla warfare against the Central Powers throughout 1918. After the insurgent victory at the Battle of Dibrivka, the Makhnovshchina came to control much of Katerynoslav province and set about constructing anarchist-communist institutions. […]
Surrounded on all sides by different enemies, the Makhnovist line in the battle for the Donbas eventually fell to the advancing White movement in June 1919. The Makhnovists were subsequently driven into a retreat to Kherson, where they reorganised their military and led a successful counteroffensive against the Whites at the Battle of Peregonovka. With the White advance defeated, the Makhnovists came to control most of southern and eastern Ukraine in late 1919, even taking over a number of large industrial cities, despite being a predominantly peasant movement.
Yeah, nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
nobody who aligned with the Bolsheviks gets to claim nonviolence or peaceful takeover of the state.
Who said anything about “nonviolence” or being “peaceful”?
@[email protected] did:
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie
If you’re going to jump into a conversation like this you should at least read all of it.
Lol!
Learn what the term anomie actually means, okay?
Nonviolence and peaceful takeovers are liberal myths to ensure the people never take back power from those who wield violence on the daily.
Fine, but beside the point because I was responding to what @[email protected] said:
Eliminating the state without that leading to anomie is possible trough a social revolution
The other option, destruction of the state, means unleashing chaos, death, and destruction on everyone
What’s your proof of this?
Zombie apocalypse movies?
History books. Pretty much every single history book ever written going back the invention of writing.
A war of succession, or rather a civil war, will be the bloodiest war you can imagine. And at the end, the most bloodthirsty bastard is most likely going to win on the promise of ending the bloodshed via any means necessary (totalitarian dictatorship)
A war of succession, or rather a civil war,
So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?
There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?
And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.
So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?
A war of succession is a civil war.
Go read the war of the roses. Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War that Lenin started.
Or the Chinese Civil war.
Or read up on what’s happened in any country that’s had its government couped or toppled.
As I said, a history book, any one of them will do if they don’t gloss over shit that the Party doesn’t like.
As for destroying the State, every civil war does that, it’s the first thing to happen, the war is what happens next.
Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War
Guess what, Clyde? No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The Bolsheviks, quite literally, seized the state! History is amazing, isn’t it?
As I said, a history book,
You have, so far, not managed to prove that you’ve read any, bright spark.
it’s the first thing to happen,
Lol! Do you even have the foggiest idea what it is you are talking about?
No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!
The State, the organization and apparatus of control.
In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.
You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.
And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.
You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.
Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.
Revolution>reform
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.
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.
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!
Can we be more specific? I kinda like having electric.
and?
and organized medicine and healthcare, which is a global effort with a very small percentage done voluntarily.
things that might be difficult under anarchism.
Good thing were living under capitalism, where I don’t have access to basic healthcare either.
