|
+ Show Spoiler +Anyways, that's all academic. The reason for bringing up Hasan was that maybe the people who have acquired a lot of both financial and social influence off of... let's call it praxis... should be the ones escalating when shit is apparently hitting the fan. If the left is to mobilise, and mobilise those not currently committed to their message, this seems to be the angle, not telling people working for the government that they're complicit in whatever Trump or Musk decided to do after the latest three seconds of thought if they don't quit.
I dont think Hasan does that, though yeah Im pretty tired of GH harping on it.
I get his point, he wants people to ask themselves, "when is what Im doing as a member of society/the government going to cross a point where what Im doing is actively supporting fascism," but imo hes trying to hammer them into an answer like its some sort of gotcha, whereas its a question that shouldnt need a verbal answer, its something for people to think about over time, something they can keep in mind for when there does come a moment where they have an answer for that question.
For clarity sake I'd just mention that part of the motivation was that had people drawn a line 6+ months ago there's very few of them that would have said what Trump is doing regarding Ukraine wouldn't have crossed it. But since no one drew a line in the context of 6-12 months ago, they can convince themselves that what Trump is doing to Ukraine is regrettable but acceptable.
The point isn't to draw the minimum line, it's to draw a maximum that you can be accountable to while leaving anything before it open to actually be where your line ends up.
It's really easy and utterly reasonable to draw a line at say, Trump outlawing Democrats from existing. But that doesn't preclude one from saying "Actually, when he locked up the 3 leading Democrat primary candidates, that was enough to cross the line for me". Just to give a relatively straightforward example.
|
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
On March 04 2025 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2025 06:17 WombaT wrote:On March 04 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2025 07:01 WombaT wrote:On March 02 2025 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu I find this especially interesting as I’ve pondered ‘with modern tools, specifically IT solutionsare some of the issues in trying to plan elements of the economy, more resolvable’? But apparently folks were trying this half a century ago, it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for pushing me onto it. The thing I find somewhat lacking in this article is how successful these efforts were, but also I guess the whole deposition of Allende saw to that overall. I feel we’re almost in a paradoxical time. It feels to me there’s never been a better time to give it a proper shot, but yet we’re seemingly as far from it as ever. A shame if you ask me. And I really must say I don’t fully understand why. I grasp many elements of why, but in totality less so In some ways it is as simple as people just not stopping to consider how all of the data social media, online shopping, google, etc. could be used to better provide what we actually want/need as humans instead of being used to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars of systemic professional psychological warfare to convince us we're bad humans if we aren't constantly consuming. We're failing as individuals if we don't have the latest models of the latest useless things that identify us as part of the right group under capitalism. That we're failing society if we don't spend every spare moment measuring and judging everyone around us by those metrics. I feel like the Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial + Show Spoiler +Juxtaposed to what MLK Jr actually thought about something like the commercial is a good example of what I'm talking about. + Show Spoiler + That’s the odd thing. Ya ask people what they really value, it tends not to be that. But, much behaviour says otherwise. Fighting through decades of ubiquitous, scientifically engineered, psychological/behavioral manipulation reinforced with trillions of dollars in propaganda is unsurprisingly pretty tough both individually and societally. A lot of people's identity is wrapped up in their perceived value based on the system as it is. Dramatically changing the system threatens their personal identities and self-perception in potentially catastrophic ways.
Aye for sure, it’s a tricky one.
The odd part to me is it almost feels as with more access to information, it’s tightened rather than loosened that grip.
I wonder if it’s as simple as x person now being more bombarded by things outside of their direct experience than before.
|
On March 04 2025 22:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2025 09:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 04 2025 06:17 WombaT wrote:On March 04 2025 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 02 2025 07:01 WombaT wrote:On March 02 2025 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 09:40 WombaT wrote:On February 27 2025 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2025 03:56 Nebuchad wrote:
No, never heard of this. I'll check it out Should be mandatory reading for people that ask some variation of the question "how come socialism never works huh!?" One of a rather long list, albeit a blooming depressing one. Pretty fascinating, first I’d heard of this one! I'm okay with reading it ~1 minute at a time, then sharing some thoughts. I think we can all manage that? In 1970 Chilean voters opted to pursue a democratic road to socialist change under the guidance of Salvador Allende. As Chile’s first democratically elected Socialist president, Allende proposed a political third way, something different from the politics and ideology of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Allende wanted to make Chile a socialist nation, but he also wanted change to occur peacefully and in a way that respected the nation’s existing democratic processes and institutions. Moving property ownership from foreign multinationals and the Chilean oligarchy to the state, redistributing income, and creating mechanisms for worker participation were among the top priorities of the Allende government. Among the democratic institutions that Allende wished to preserve were respect for election results, individual freedoms (such as the freedom of thought, speech, press, and assembly), and the rule of law. His commitment to socialist change through constitutional means set Chile’s socialism apart from that of Cuba or the Soviet Union. His platform became known as the “Chilean road to socialism.”
Chile was an exceptional nation within Latin America. From 1932 to 1973 Chile boasted the longest period of uninterrupted democratic rule in Latin America. Allende’s outward commitment to peaceful socialist change and the free expression of ideas stood in sharp contrast to the political situation in neighboring countries such as Argentina and Brazil. In 1970 these two nations had repressive military governments that had seized control, ostensibly to stop the threat of communism. Chile was also a battleground in the global cold war and a focus of U.S. attention. From 1962 to 1969 Chile received more than a billion dollars in U.S. aid, more than any other nation in Latin America, as part of the Alliance for Progress. The United States believed such levels of aid would help raise living standards for Chileans and thus stop members of the poor and working classes from turning to communism.
thereader.mitpress.mit.eduThe first thing that leaps out to me is just how few people have heard of it or the context it existed in. Poll: Familiar with Project Cybersyn/Allende before reading about them here?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes, Both
☐ No, Neither
☐ Yes Cybersyn
☐ Yes Allende
People are welcome to share their thoughts about the previous minute but I'm also going to move on to the next minute. The first bit is something that came to my mind while people were talking about Russia influencing US elections. The second bit is our introduction to the thinking behind starting Cybersyn The United States responded to Allende’s election by adopting a “non-overt course” to prevent Chile from turning socialist. This included funding government opposition parties and opposition-owned media outlets and sabotaging the Chilean economy. For example, the United States established an invisible financial blockade and significantly reduced its aid to Chile. It also used its substantial influence to cut international and bilateral aid and private bank credit to Chile, prevented Allende from renegotiating the national debt he had inherited from his predecessor, and decreased the value of U.S. exports to Chile. Allende’s commitment to changing Chile’s long-standing social and economic structures also met with strong opposition from members of Chile’s privileged classes. Nevertheless, Chile’s long and solid commitment to its democratic institutions led Chileans and onlookers from around the world to wonder whether Allende and his government might succeed in pioneering a new political model.
This political experiment set the stage for an innovative and ambitious technological experiment, known as Project Cybersyn. Bringing Chile’s most important industries under state control constituted a key plank in Allende’s political platform, and it soon challenged the management capabilities of the Allende government. Members of the Chilean government thought that electronic computers and the interdisciplinary science of cybernetics might help the government gain control over the country’s economic transition.
An Unexpected Invitation
In July 1971, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer received an unexpected letter from Chile. Its contents would dramatically change Beer’s life. The writer was a young Chilean engineer named Fernando Flores, who was working for the government of newly elected Socialist president Salvador Allende. Flores worked for the Chilean State Development Corporation, the agency responsible for leading the nationalization effort. Although Flores was only 28 when he wrote Beer, he held the third-highest position in the development agency and a leadership role in the Chilean nationalization process. Flores wrote that he was familiar with Beer’s work in management cybernetics and was “now in a position from which it is possible to implement on a national scale — at which cybernetic thinking becomes a necessity — scientific views on management and organization.” Flores asked Beer for advice on how to apply cybernetics to the management of the Chilean economy, which was expanding quickly because of Allende’s aggressive nationalization policy. thereader.mitpress.mit.edu I find this especially interesting as I’ve pondered ‘with modern tools, specifically IT solutionsare some of the issues in trying to plan elements of the economy, more resolvable’? But apparently folks were trying this half a century ago, it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for pushing me onto it. The thing I find somewhat lacking in this article is how successful these efforts were, but also I guess the whole deposition of Allende saw to that overall. I feel we’re almost in a paradoxical time. It feels to me there’s never been a better time to give it a proper shot, but yet we’re seemingly as far from it as ever. A shame if you ask me. And I really must say I don’t fully understand why. I grasp many elements of why, but in totality less so In some ways it is as simple as people just not stopping to consider how all of the data social media, online shopping, google, etc. could be used to better provide what we actually want/need as humans instead of being used to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars of systemic professional psychological warfare to convince us we're bad humans if we aren't constantly consuming. We're failing as individuals if we don't have the latest models of the latest useless things that identify us as part of the right group under capitalism. That we're failing society if we don't spend every spare moment measuring and judging everyone around us by those metrics. I feel like the Dodge Ram Super Bowl commercial + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUsz51Ep39U&t=1s Juxtaposed to what MLK Jr actually thought about something like the commercial is a good example of what I'm talking about. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_v1h6Zoi-Q That’s the odd thing. Ya ask people what they really value, it tends not to be that. But, much behaviour says otherwise. Fighting through decades of ubiquitous, scientifically engineered, psychological/behavioral manipulation reinforced with trillions of dollars in propaganda is unsurprisingly pretty tough both individually and societally. A lot of people's identity is wrapped up in their perceived value based on the system as it is. Dramatically changing the system threatens their personal identities and self-perception in potentially catastrophic ways. Aye for sure, it’s a tricky one. The odd part to me is it almost feels as with more access to information, it’s tightened rather than loosened that grip. I wonder if it’s as simple as x person now being more bombarded by things outside of their direct experience than before.
Sort of the opposite imo. With the plethora of information and content out there one never really has to leave their bubble.
I could easily do a "ThirdHorizons" that was a third way Dem or "ConHorizons" to be a neverTrumper Republican, or "MAGAHorizons". Meanwhile, basically no one that's been dismissing socialism as potential path out of this, can effectively do that with any type of socialism.
They don't know how, and they obliviously see no need to learn.
|
People do not value being correct as much as we'd like to believe they do. Just look at Sermo here: "I really hope we reach the day when GH can say that its that bad and we should do the simple thing in front of us to stop him from having the power to do these things."
Like, Sermo isn't this stupid. He knows that the thing he advocates for doesn't stop Trump from having power, because he's been doing it and Trump has power. But he values not having to do anything over being correct or trying to find solutions that actually work.
I feel like this is something we should also account for. There will always be a proportion of people who will never be ready to do anything. Spending time trying to move those specific people is a waste.
|
On March 05 2025 00:26 Nebuchad wrote:
People do not value being correct as much as we'd like to believe they do. Just look at Sermo here: "I really hope we reach the day when GH can say that its that bad and we should do the simple thing in front of us to stop him from having the power to do these things."
Like, Sermo isn't this stupid. He knows that the thing he advocates for doesn't stop Trump from having power, because he's been doing it and Trump has power. But he values not having to do anything over being correct or trying to find solutions that actually work.
I feel like this is something we should also account for. There will always be a proportion of people who will never be ready to do anything. Spending time trying to move those specific people is a waste.
TBH even I've been disappointed in LibHorizons' reception. They remind me of the "dog who caught the car" idiom.
They have a place to discuss socialism with me in good faith and/or a liberal version of me that's desperate to work the electoralism angle.
With that at hand, they're angrily refusing both. Opting instead for endless asinine discussions with bad faith right wingers. It has catastrophically undermined years of their complaints about me/people to their left. It also pretty objectively displays them as valuing not having to do anything over being correct (EDIT: unless it's to 'pwn the MAGAts') or trying to find working (even under their own paradigms) solutions as you say.
I would actually rather us both be wrong about this, but I fear we're not.
|
|
|
On March 05 2025 11:24 Sermokala wrote:
Nah you aren't worth it
You're doing a pretty good job of making the case for Neb that actually you're the one that isn't "worth it".
|
To add on to the “worth it” piece, what motivates someone to devote themselves to making the world a better place for everyone when there’s so much hostility directed towards you from the people you’re supposedly trying to help? It seems to me that a movement with that goal should have a foundation of compassion and love for everyone, what does one tell themselves to maintain said compassion in the face of such adversity? Or if one doesn’t have that compassion, why would they go through the effort?
|
On March 06 2025 01:48 Ryzel wrote:
To add on to the “worth it” piece, what motivates someone to devote themselves to making the world a better place for everyone when there’s so much hostility directed towards you from the people you’re supposedly trying to help? It seems to me that a movement with that goal should have a foundation of compassion and love for everyone, what does one tell themselves to maintain said compassion in the face of such adversity? Or if one doesn’t have that compassion, why would they go through the effort?
At the core of it you're going to need to have some humanist values for sure, because I can't lie if someone is an egoist and only wants to create better conditions for themselves, they probably shouldn't be a leftist, that's not the best way to achieve that.
Now if you start from that core, maybe it's my bias talking but I don't really see how you can argue for anything other than socialism. Just about everything that negatively impacts humans, racism, bigotry, poverty, imperialism / fascism, derives from social hierarchies and an attempt to maintain them or reinforce them. Aiming to have an impact on those realities without targeting the cause, which in this day and age is capitalism, seems like a self-delusion.
I think there's some spectrum quality to this as well, which you're getting at in your post. Most people aren't entirely humanists or entirely egoists. More people will be willing to fight a social hierarchy when it doesn't cost them anything, and the larger the cost, the least amount of people you'll have on your side. I probably wouldn't give up internet for example  I can imagine people giving up because they're getting yelled at, but I would need something a little more impactful myself, I'm not doing this because I want to be liked. Also I'm a bit of a dick in general, some of the yelling is probably on me.
|
On February 03 2025 22:56 Navane wrote:
In the USA, EU and China, societies have both capitalist and socialist traits. What dogshit are you trying to peddle in this thread.
Any society that even tries to be 100% purebread becomes an instant caricature. USA highways are socialist. China's street markets are kapitalist.
Your abstractions do not serve you.
This is the only real answer that is worth looking at.
Every system is just a mix of the two.
|
On March 09 2025 18:54 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2025 22:56 Navane wrote:
In the USA, EU and China, societies have both capitalist and socialist traits. What dogshit are you trying to peddle in this thread.
Any society that even tries to be 100% purebread becomes an instant caricature. USA highways are socialist. China's street markets are kapitalist.
Your abstractions do not serve you. This is the only real answer that is worth looking at. Every system is just a mix of the two.
Obviously this is nonsense, the capitalist class can't at the same time exist and not exist. The guy was literally saying the highways are socialist because the State built them, lol. But I assume you don't care?
|
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition.
|
On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition.
You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF.
IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays?
|
On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays?
I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me.
|
On March 28 2025 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays? I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me.
I'd be curious what odds you'd give each or at least relative to each other including the US collapsing/becoming a nakedly fascist superpower?
I guess I'm also curious if you make a distinction between non-reformist reforms and "vote blue no matter who" type electoralism when you're portioning out your options there?
|
On March 28 2025 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays? I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me. I'd be curious what odds you'd give each or at least relative to each other including the US collapsing/becoming a nakedly fascist superpower? I guess I'm also curious if you make a distinction between non-reformist reforms and "vote blue no matter who" type electoralism when you're portioning out your options there?
Nah I won't give odds cause it wouldn't be based on much, and I could easily be wrong. Fighting against systemic forces is hard and has a very low chance of success, that's all I can say with certainty.
And yeah of course I make that distinction, obviously there's no difference for the future of the US when Biden is in power or when Trump is in power, as Biden won't change anything and will just hold space until the next republican is president. I'm only speaking about people on our side.
|
Northern Ireland25995 Posts
On March 28 2025 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays? I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me. I'd be curious what odds you'd give each or at least relative to each other including the US collapsing/becoming a nakedly fascist superpower? I guess I'm also curious if you make a distinction between non-reformist reforms and "vote blue no matter who" type electoralism when you're portioning out your options there?
What do you mean by ‘non-reformist reforms’? Maybe this is obvious and I’m yet to fully awaken properly!
|
On March 28 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays? I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me. I'd be curious what odds you'd give each or at least relative to each other including the US collapsing/becoming a nakedly fascist superpower? I guess I'm also curious if you make a distinction between non-reformist reforms and "vote blue no matter who" type electoralism when you're portioning out your options there? Nah I won't give odds cause it wouldn't be based on much, and I could easily be wrong. Fighting against systemic forces is hard and has a very low chance of success, that's all I can say with certainty. And yeah of course I make that distinction, obviously there's no difference for the future of the US when Biden is in power or when Trump is in power, as Biden won't change anything and will just hold space until the next republican is president. I'm only speaking about people on our side.
Okay. I was just thrown off by the " I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me.".
If I read that from most other posters that would be them saying they don't understand how supporting Clinton, Biden, etc could be detrimental to progress. Also I consider non-reformist reforms to be revolutionary politics.
It's clear the libs/Dems/ilk don't have any damn idea what to do at this point. They can't even decide if they support, oppose, or should modify LibHorizons' plan. What are your thoughts on a plan/how we can maximize our odds of winning the war against these systemic forces?
|
On March 28 2025 21:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays? I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me. I'd be curious what odds you'd give each or at least relative to each other including the US collapsing/becoming a nakedly fascist superpower? I guess I'm also curious if you make a distinction between non-reformist reforms and "vote blue no matter who" type electoralism when you're portioning out your options there? What do you mean by ‘non-reformist reforms’? Maybe this is obvious and I’m yet to fully awaken properly!
No offense, but this is one reason why I repeat things so many times.
Non-reformist reforms are basically reforms that move us toward socialism, rather than perpetuating capitalism.
|
On March 28 2025 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 28 2025 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 28 2025 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2025 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:
So in this current moment with the journalist being added in the group chat of Hegseth, one very large issue that is worth pointing out is that because of their past choices liberals are going to have a hard time criticizing one of the largest issues in this group chat, which is that there is zero effort made to avoid civilian casualties. The chats go, we see him go into his girlfriend's appartment building, bomb that shit down, the building is down, excellent. If none of this was public there would be some pretense that efforts were made to avoid civilian casualties, but here we see clearly that nothing at all happened. That's a war crime obviously.
We could attack them for that, could we not? But we can't, because in their doomed quest of defending whatever Israel has done, the Democrats and the liberals have made it very clear that doing something like this is entirely okay with them. So now if they attack the Republicans for doing it, it would look massively hypocritical even to their own audience. And so we lose a very human angle of attack on the opposition. You're absolutely right. Nevermind the whole aspect of Congress not being involved because of the 2001 AUMF. IIRC one of our primary disagreements was basically whether the US was salvageable through electing the Democrat party and revolutionary politics were unnecessary. How you feeling about that nowadays? I mean I probably don't think the US is salvageable either through the Democrats or revolutionary politics, so based on not having a ton of hope either way I'm not going to cut my options in half and demand that we do one or the other, that makes no sense to me. I'd be curious what odds you'd give each or at least relative to each other including the US collapsing/becoming a nakedly fascist superpower? I guess I'm also curious if you make a distinction between non-reformist reforms and "vote blue no matter who" type electoralism when you're portioning out your options there? Nah I won't give odds cause it wouldn't be based on much, and I could easily be wrong. Fighting against systemic forces is hard and has a very low chance of success, that's all I can say with certainty. And yeah of course I make that distinction, obviously there's no difference for the future of the US when Biden is in power or when Trump is in power, as Biden won't change anything and will just hold space until the next republican is president. I'm only speaking about people on our side. If I read that from most other posters that would be them saying they don't understand how supporting Clinton, Biden, etc could be detrimental to progress. Also I consider non-reformist reforms to be revolutionary politics.
Oh you do? I'm unclear on how this works then, because I don't think we've ever had a disagreement on Biden or Clinton, it's more like the AOC or Bernie types that we have disagreed about in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
