|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 23 2019 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole ordeal about Puerto Rico miss-managing relief funds is pretty spicy atm. We all bashed Trump over attacking the governor for being a corrupt shitbag misusing funds. Now it turns out it was all true and people are protesting. Yikes
I would too after I never got the help Katrina received. How many years ago was this and we didn't do jack for them?
|
On July 23 2019 07:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 02:44 KwarK wrote:
I wasn’t aware Al Franken had been executed. Which channel was it broadcast on?
Politicians' careers are disposable in a democracy. That’s the whole point. That’s how it works. If they stop being disposable at the will of the electorate then that’s called dictatorship. A) You're not talking about a democracy. You're talking about a republic.
Yikes. Hadn't heard that one outside of Crowder.
He is most definitely talking about a democracy.
|
On July 23 2019 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole ordeal about Puerto Rico miss-managing relief funds is pretty spicy atm. We all bashed Trump over attacking the governor for being a corrupt shitbag misusing funds. Now it turns out it was all true and people are protesting. Yikes Trump didn’t attack the governor. Trump attacked the mayor of San Juan, a strong critic of the corrupt governor, and praised the governor. I’m not sure where you get your news from but it seems to be heavily curated in Trump’s favour.
No doubt this will be twisted around to be the official word on the matter soon enough.
Speaking of which, does Trump have a new 'lie to the public' person yet?
|
On July 23 2019 08:14 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 08:00 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2019 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole ordeal about Puerto Rico miss-managing relief funds is pretty spicy atm. We all bashed Trump over attacking the governor for being a corrupt shitbag misusing funds. Now it turns out it was all true and people are protesting. Yikes Trump didn’t attack the governor. Trump attacked the mayor of San Juan, a strong critic of the corrupt governor, and praised the governor. I’m not sure where you get your news from but it seems to be heavily curated in Trump’s favour. No doubt this will be twisted around to be the official word on the matter soon enough. Speaking of which, does Trump have a new 'lie to the public' person yet? Didn't he appoint Ivanka's PR person?
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 23 2019 04:35 Grumbels wrote:
He's replaceable because he was literally replaced by a Democrat with very similar policies. The existence of one popular senator who is marred by a sexual misconduct scandal can be weighed against an anonymous replacement senator without scandal. Maybe one is better, maybe the other, but certainly it's not catastrophically worse. I think given the time and place it was admirable, if politically expedient, for the Democratic Party to sacrifice Franken in order to maintain its strong support of the #MeToo movement.
That is the problem in a nutshell. If the party is free to expel members in the name of political expediency without establishing culpability beyond the shadow of a doubt, it erodes group solidarity while concomitantly rewarding self-preservation. If you've ever worked in an low-trust environment (e.g. the corporate world in general these days), you'll notice that people instinctively insulate themselves from low occurrence, high impact scenarios. In that example, caution generally manifests as perpetual job-hopping; companies lack loyalty to their employees so they are treated with equal indifference.
Furthermore, caution become necessary when the skin in the game is lopsided. Sexual harassment claims are notably asymmetric when it comes to consequences. True and false accusations often ruin lives whether they play out in a court of law; false accusations proved to be false generally fail to hurt the accuser. So members will freeze out the contagion completely rather than engage.
A secondary problem is it encourages internal balkanizaton as various groups seize upon defamation as a valid political tactic. Some politicians are too vapid to understand they're treading in hot water by engaging in ill-conceived affairs and the like (remember Petraeus?). Others will retreat from public exposure or minimize the possibility of being mistaken (Biden). A select few understand they are in the ascendant and the nascent rules unilaterally favor them, so they will stride forward with full gusto (the eponymous "squad").
The brief spat between AOC and Pelosi a week and a half ago already hints at a fundamental schism among the Democrats. Despite what pundits claim, it is fundamental. Only a few years ago, it was an unspoken rule to never air grievances within earshot of the Republicans. The stakes were too high to display an inch of weakness. Yet AOC casually flung an accusation of racism at an ostensible ally - the Speaker of the House - without receiving a meaningful reprimand. And let's not pretend Pelosi is going to forgive her anytime soon. AOC broke a cardinal rule of the Hill by publicly disrespecting her elder.
TL;DR it was stupid because it sacrificed long-term cohesion for short-sighted benefit.
If you believe Adolph Reed Jr., this is just one example of a long-running phenomenon. The Democrats leverage the races for House/Senate/President into a perpetual state of 'crisis' to avoid the onerous work of rehabilitating their organization and policies.
On July 23 2019 04:35 Grumbels wrote:
That Franken himself personally suffered by any aspersions and misleading gossip is unfortunate, but unavoidable. He chose to resign and no politician should feel like they're irreplaceable. I also think Biden was replaceable and he should have been pressured to retire as a politician one or two years ago. It's possibly different now given the stakes of the Presidential election, but it's certainly not an ideal situation for the Democratic Party to have a frontrunner who is a creep. There might come a time where you'll wish he had resigned when he first had the chance when the GOP runs ad after ad of Biden groping underage girls.
He was forced to resign. Schumer did not give him an option. Either he quit or he would become persona non grata within the caucus.
On July 23 2019 04:35 Grumbels wrote:
I do think there is a conversation to be had about the accessibility of Congress for people from different backgrounds. There is a strong preference in Congress for politicians educated in a select number of Ivy League universities who were part of well connected fraternities. These people are often well behaved and coached in saying the right things.
Some of it is a holdover from the old days (c. late 19th century-early 20th) when political office was seen as a gentlemanly affair. The scions of well-to-do families were encouraged to attend Ivy League schools, environments that aimed to cultivate good bearing and other "virtues", as the fast track to positions. Most of it consists of ugly pragmatic reality. It is hard to build up a network in the cutthroat world of politics, let alone lure enough backers to run campaigns and project influence. Graduating from Harvard or Yale makes you a node in the system with access to fellow classmates, their friends, and the august seniors who are more than happy to help out another graduate.
It would be remiss to entertain such a discourse without acknowledging the role the Democrats played in maintaining the status quo. After the McGovern Commission, the party slowly switched its policies to embrace technocratic elitism and the wealthy UMC demographic that would subsequently fund them. Guess which schools those potential donors came from? Guess which constituents will be feted upon no matter how much the party feigns populism?
On July 23 2019 04:35 Grumbels wrote:
But people from other backgrounds are often haunted by accusations of past misbehavior. I've seen a lot of examples of former radicals or activists who were criticized for their association with this or that movement, or working class candidates criticized for being slightly ill-at-ease in DC. In the case of Franken, most of his accusations came from his days as a traveling comedian who was cultivating an overbearing persona. But in many other cases it might be actors or athletes who have prominent national profiles and are inevitably haunted by scandals or some sort of misconduct. I don't think it's too much to ask for Congress not to be peopled by sex offenders, and of course this is a particularly sensitive topic these days. But there should be some leniency afforded to those with "rowdy" pasts who are new to the mores of civility demanded by the political and media establishment, because otherwise this risks filtering out anyone who was not molded by a Harvard education.
Obvious examples of the latter are AOC and Ilhan Omar.
Wishful thinking at best. One cannot create exceptions for an established standard just because it's politically advantageous. Everyone has to adhere to the new norm unless you're so belligerent and hardheaded you can bulldoze through the resistance.
On July 23 2019 08:03 Nebuchad wrote:
Yikes. Hadn't heard that one outside of Crowder.
He is most definitely talking about a democracy.
No, he's talking about some fanciful definition of democracy where the electorate somehow has the magical power to demote its representative over any perceived wrongdoing i.e. a self-serving fiction. The only situation such a thing could happen in is a direct democracy, which completely bypasses the setup.
One of the points of a republic/representative democracy is to insulate the representatives from the will of the people after election. That is arguably one of its weaknesses as well: elected officials are not required to fulfill promises made before the election.
|
On July 23 2019 08:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 07:59 Mohdoo wrote:
This whole ordeal about Puerto Rico miss-managing relief funds is pretty spicy atm. We all bashed Trump over attacking the governor for being a corrupt shitbag misusing funds. Now it turns out it was all true and people are protesting. Yikes Trump didn’t attack the governor. Trump attacked the mayor of San Juan, a strong critic of the corrupt governor, and praised the governor. I’m not sure where you get your news from but it seems to be heavily curated in Trump’s favour.
You're right, it was all about the mayor and not the governor. My mistake!
|
On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Funny story, one of my first requests ever (iirc) of mods was to change it (slightly), never happened, so I guess that worked out.
Since I'm in "I'm here so I don't get fined mode" for a bit until I get some feedback from moderation, can we address some of your concerns, or at least give it a good faith effort?
Why are you asking? I got a slightly chilling PM from moderation. I've already given you permission to speak however you see fit that gets your ideas across. Moderation be damned Easy for you to say lol. if this gets a lot of confusion/frustration cleared up. Just bring the substance. And then, we can cook with Crisco. I desperately hope it does. So let's take into consideration IgnE's previous point. On July 22 2019 06:35 IgnE wrote:
Is this the trial of GreenHorizons? What is the point of this?
Maybe stop asking GH to do what libraries of books have been written to do, and maybe GH limit yourself to particular analyses rather than some vague call to revolution for people who’ve never read a socialist thinker in their life. Let's start carefully, and agree on a way to close this gap (presuming I've underestimated your familiarity with the subject matter and/or done a poor job communicating my position because of my misestimation it). Ask me a question that's narrow in scope that we can build from. You had a top 5 things you would do and I pointed out #1 has a lot in common with my perspective. I think that may be a good place to start. EDIT At your leisure, just request you afford me the same consideration. If you ever feel like I'm unreasonably dodging going forward, please try PM'ing me before going to the mods because as has been mentioned before my posting is being closely monitored and will not be granted the same leniencies as others as far as I understand (this isn't an objection to that, merely a statement). I'll start with a quote. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard? Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith.
Also @JimmiC
What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent?
Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know?
|
On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 13:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Why are you asking? I got a slightly chilling PM from moderation. I've already given you permission to speak however you see fit that gets your ideas across. Moderation be damned Easy for you to say lol. if this gets a lot of confusion/frustration cleared up. Just bring the substance. And then, we can cook with Crisco. I desperately hope it does. So let's take into consideration IgnE's previous point. On July 22 2019 06:35 IgnE wrote:
Is this the trial of GreenHorizons? What is the point of this?
Maybe stop asking GH to do what libraries of books have been written to do, and maybe GH limit yourself to particular analyses rather than some vague call to revolution for people who’ve never read a socialist thinker in their life. Let's start carefully, and agree on a way to close this gap (presuming I've underestimated your familiarity with the subject matter and/or done a poor job communicating my position because of my misestimation it). Ask me a question that's narrow in scope that we can build from. You had a top 5 things you would do and I pointed out #1 has a lot in common with my perspective. I think that may be a good place to start. EDIT At your leisure, just request you afford me the same consideration. If you ever feel like I'm unreasonably dodging going forward, please try PM'ing me before going to the mods because as has been mentioned before my posting is being closely monitored and will not be granted the same leniencies as others as far as I understand (this isn't an objection to that, merely a statement). I'll start with a quote. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard? Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know?
The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before.
And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that.
But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside.
|
On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 13:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I got a slightly chilling PM from moderation.
[quote]
Easy for you to say lol.
[quote]
I desperately hope it does.
So let's take into consideration IgnE's previous point.
[quote]
Let's start carefully, and agree on a way to close this gap (presuming I've underestimated your familiarity with the subject matter and/or done a poor job communicating my position because of my misestimation it).
Ask me a question that's narrow in scope that we can build from. You had a top 5 things you would do and I pointed out #1 has a lot in common with my perspective. I think that may be a good place to start.
EDIT At your leisure, just request you afford me the same consideration. If you ever feel like I'm unreasonably dodging going forward, please try PM'ing me before going to the mods because as has been mentioned before my posting is being closely monitored and will not be granted the same leniencies as others as far as I understand (this isn't an objection to that, merely a statement). I'll start with a quote. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard? Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside.
They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make.
But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution?
|
On July 23 2019 07:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 06:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 05:55 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 04:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 04:21 JimmiC wrote:
What has the "socialist class" done in countries when the people don't agree with the decisions made by those in control? I'm being forced to respond to you until a public statement is made otherwise. I don't know what you mean by "socialist class"? Also maybe if someone defines the "capitalist class" it will be easier to understand this. Are they just the general rich people? Business owners? A group of powerful people pulling the strings behind the scenes? Couple guys named Marx and Engels did that about 160 years ago. Here's a brief summary, with a more in depth explanation I suggest people should read (should read Marx himself too) before replacing "capitalist" with "socialist" in a term and presuming it has meaning. Each country has its own ruling class. In capitalist countries, the rulers own the means of production and employ workers. The capitalist class is also called the bourgeoisie. Means of production are what it takes to produce goods. Raw materials, satellite networks, machinery, ships and factories are examples. Workers own nothing but their ability to sell their labor for a wage.
Because they privately own the means of production, capitalists keep profits. They make higher profits by cutting workers’ wages and introducing new technology to speed up production. liberationschool.orgIf all you read is that small summary you'll continue to ask questions that have already been addressed. I'd be happy to explain what I meant by that right after you define "capitalist class". Including some examples of the people in it. wut? I just gave that to you? That is still quite vague no? No idea what you've read/comprehended (from what I've just provided) and didn't at this point? Like the guy in my town who owns a gift shop and has 3 employee's? Or because he doesn't produce anything he doesn't count? Or because he is not wealthy he doesn't count? Is there a cut off? (your article describes them as small capitalists.)
I'm trying to figure out if this is just the Gates of the world or whether it is every business owner that will need to be removed. There are more in depth resources you should check out if you really want to learn about this stuff (happy to point you toward them), I'm not a professor. But so long as I'm being forced to do this... Let's look at the answer provided already: Owners of neighborhood markets and landlords are examples of small capitalists. If owners employ other people, they are capitalists-even if the people they employ are family members. If they don’t employ other people, they hope to. If an owner’s small business does not grow, it fails. The business is taken over by a larger one.
Is a manager in the work place a capitalist? Managers who supervise workers don’t usually own the company. They receive higher pay and better benefits than workers. They are not capitalists, but are paid to act in the interests of the capitalist bosses.
There are many different layers within the ruling class and the working class. There is also a huge middle class in the U.S. Yet, both the capitalist and working class have fewer layers within them than any other class in history. The wealth of the ruling class is constantly being concentrated in to fewer hands. Capitalism is always pushing more people into the working class. The working class is becoming poorer and larger. I'd say they are a member of/adjacent to white club, a capitalist, and not in the same layer of the capitalist class as Gates. The individual power they possess is minimal relative to the strata of the capitalist class occupied by the likes of Bezos and Gates. Yes the power derived from white club and their membership in the capitalist class must be removed for a successful society to sustain in my view. Also, where would you categorize workers who do not wish to be part of the socialist revolution? Are they part of the capital class because they support it or are they still workers? What is the consequences for them for not agreeing? Again, there's a bunch of literature on this I advise people look at to see what they think make sense themselves. Again let's look at the answer provided: The ruling class uses the military to protect their private property and oppress workers. But what class is the military? There are different classes in the military. Generals often come from the ruling class. The majority of soldiers come from the working class, so their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Many workers have no way to survive other than taking a job with the military. Due to racism the poorest workers are disproportionately Black, Latino, Asian, Arab and Native American. This is reflected in the military.
The ruling class uses racism to keep the workers divided. They use laws and prisons, schools and the corporate media to spread racism. Fighting racism is integral to fighting capitalism. In this example it's the military and racism but the same general concepts apply to other gray areas. If we return to z2c and my discussion on this topic, it's our step one that is meant to address this conflict. In the answer I provided you it's articulated as: their loyalty to the ruling class is never a sure bet. Edit: also if you hold stock are you considered a owner? What if the company pays a portion of the salary in stock options? This line of questioning is of little value imo but it's respond to you or get banned as best I understand it at this point. Worker ownership is a thing that's been discussed at length before so I don't even know what you're trying to ask here? Capitalism and Socialism at their core are organizing principles of ownership? No I understand the theory, and it is very odd that you keep telling me to go read things. I am fully capable of doing that myself. What I'm interested in is your interpenetration. I find it very strange that you are so protective of it. I'm asking what these things mean to you. I haven't seen you demonstrate the type of understanding you're claiming which is why I find this process frustrating. I'm not protective of it, it's just if you had a familiarity with the theory I would have to explain much less of it in layman terms for someone I don't believe is entering dialogue in good faith. I'm a person who is interested in both the practical and the theoretical. You seem fairly well versed in the the theoretical but completely unwilling to address the practical applications of your theory. This is also why I and so many others have asked things like your work history and education to try to better understand where you are coming from. I don't know how you can claim to have familiarity with the theory and then make this assertion. I've discussed my jobs before but I've had many. Ranging from labor ready type shit to selling real estate. As a matter of basic self-preservation and personal security it's not in my interest to provide more detailed information than that. If you don't want to discuss the practical part that is fine I'm fine discussing it? I'd rather not with you for reasons I mentioned. But I want to be able to engage with everyone else, so here we are. but then I would suggest stop bringing up the revolution or solving climate change. No, and I'd appreciate if you stop telling me what to do. It is like you keep putting the teaser out of a amazing solution but than are unwilling to discuss how it actually would work. You gotta watch the movie if you want to know how it ends bro. In all seriousness it both our jobs (as well as everyone else) to answer that question (to the degree that we can predict the future). Also, I'm sure you wouldn't get banned for not responding to me. You probably just miss read and are being over dramatic. I've asked for clarification from the person that gave me that impression and you're free to ask in feedback as well for that clarification rather than accuse me of being dramatic and having "miss read" it. I mean I don't care if you don't respond to me I'm perfectly content to go back to ignoring you (more or less), but I need your help clearing that up with moderation. I'm a believer in choice and free will, I'm sure they don't. But they are probably not big fans of your passive aggressive responses where you are responding to me clearly but don't say my name or loosely veil it. Occasionally you raise arguments that are popularly believed or expressed and should be addressed, there's just little value in engaging with you directly from my experience/imo. And while your paying attention. ? I'm not sure why you are so confused on my position regarding South America. I'm not? I don't support right wing Authoritarians anymore than I support Maduro. Posting about them is no dig to me, and I'm well aware that the US supports some dictatorships and not others and that their motives are not altruistic. I don't think you recognize the defining features of the delineations between the ones they support and the ones they don't. Or if you recognize them, you don't appreciate their significance. I'm referencing their subservience to US interests. But that does not mean I automatically am against everything that they do. Sometimes they do the right thing, even if it may be for the wrong reasons.
Okay? On Israel, feel free to clarify because people have been saying I have your position wrong. you do. But I believe it to be "go back to their own countries" or be destroyed. That's a poor interpretation as several people have told you. And considering we both know they are not leaving this means you would like to see them destroyed. Again a poor interpretation as you've been told several times by several people. I find it odd that you find it so offensive when people in America tell people to go back to their own countries I don't find it offensive when indigenous people do? , but you do not see the parallel. It's a preposterous one? I'm pretty sure someone would be banned if they told a group (religion, race nationality or whatever) to go back to their countries or be destroyed. Maybe? But you're the only one saying that, soo... I guess we'll see? And I'm also talking about telling the white people from white club to go back to their countries as well. Why? As a general rule I think if you added a lot more of the "how" your preferred policies would be implemented instead of just sticking to the theoretical "why's". You would have a much more well rounded approach. Thanks for the tip? It would either further your belief as you would feel like it is much more obtainable or it might alter your belief as you find out why things happen the way they do now. And perhaps even better, how things that failed before, or at least didn't succeed completely can be done better. Thanks for the advice? Suggestions are not telling you what to do, they are suggestions. For a guy who argues that he is offended when I call your "presumptions" "assumptions", I would think you would know the difference. You keep doing what you want, just don't expect different results from what you are getting. You like to think of me as the root of all your problems. But you guy into fights with all sorts of people, it is not only me.
If you say so.
On Israel, sure they have but I don't believe that they actually got it right.
You're definitely wrong still?
So please clarify. Since obviously you can describe your position better. You have multiple times said you want to "resettle" Israel. The people don't want to go.
"Resettle Israel" doesn't sound like me, how about you quote it or stop raising this line of argument? Please, quote whatever gave you this perception or just assume you misunderstood it and move on.
How would you feel if the US decided to resettle a bunch of the Chinese in San Francisco back to China? I then "presume" you move to violence since that is where you move to in removing the "capitalist class".
What?
I think maybe why you think I don't understand socialism is some sort of odd intellectual elitism
Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers.
when you only want to discuss it as if we are in a political science class reading political philosophers.
No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue.
I'm not that guy, I was many years ago but only entry level as to me it gets old fast to go found and round only on the philosophical level without ever moving to the practical level.
Sure...
I also find it pretty funny how you like to talk about being "on your level".
Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend?
If you would like we could decide on some online IQ test that would be fair and we hadn't gamed it and see.
This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun.
I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm certainly not the writer you are, or the philosophical buff. But I think you would be surprised where we ended up. It is not that I can't comprehend what you are saying, it is that you are not answering the questions posed to you.
Sure seems like a comprehension issue (maybe a little communication as IgnE pointed out before) according to the people who have already demonstrated they understand the material being discussed
Might be a fun exercise where you can embarrass me with your superior intellect!
Yeah, but to what end?
From the posting it would be my guess that you would end up much higher in the Language portions and lower in some of the others. But we don't know until we try.
Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"?
|
Pretty odd outburst from trump today in which he said that nuking afghanistan and killing all of it's people would end the war. He then turned to the Pakistani FM and asked him whether he understood what trump was saying.
Of course, no one should consider what trump said as serious or credible. It's just him being a clown, per usual.
|
On July 23 2019 09:39 Doodsmack wrote:Pretty odd outburst from trump today in which he said that nuking afghanistan and killing all of it's people would end the war. He then turned to the Pakistani FM and asked him whether he understood what trump was saying. Of course, no one should consider what trump said as serious or credible. It's just him being a clown, per usual. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1153355316681170946
I mean the scary part (for me) is his reasoning for why he doesn't "want to go that route" and trying to believe it.
|
On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I'll start with a quote.
[quote]
I'll assume you mean titans of industry when you say "capitalist class" and therefore wish to strip them of their influence and power. I can agree to an extent. Now, how do you go about it and who is the recipient? How does that not get abused by the new? In keeping with the quote, do you "segregate" any class? How do you build that community that is onboard?
Edit: this goes to point...3? Of my top 5? I didn't check before replying. Feel free to add it to one of create a new point. Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before? I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know. 5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution?
It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable.
I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US.
A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly?
|
On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Why the random quote from someone I don't think has even been brought up here before?
I think we should start with point 1 and try not to presume too much at once. If you insist you believe the disagreements around point 3 is the best place to start, you're in charge and that's what we'll do. Just let me know.
5 Point Plan To a Successful Revolution by Z2C
1. Immediate re-education of the society and climate that we live in, exposing children from middle school onward about the dangers of xenophobia, unchecked climate change and capitalism, as well as basic understanding of politics.
2. Term limits of congressmen/women who are there to serve the will of the collective people, and not just the wealthy donors who pay them. Those who abdicate responsibility or fail to actualize the will of the people, are removed immediately and replaced.
3. Healthcare for all, at a rate that is conducive to their lifestyle. If you're at or below the poverty line, you're covered. Anyone above, married or single, you can choose government backed healthcare or private.
4. Foreign relations must be upheld and maintained in accordance with the sovereignty of the nation we are dealing with. No unilateral punitive measures are to be taken without at least a majority vote of the G7.
5. Education must be continuously improved and enhanced to face the challenges of the world, while also looking to the future of what humanity needs. STEaM and trades get equal coverage and pay must be at or above "middle class" status. For reference. Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly?
Have you completed your side of our other conversation?
The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running.
There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.
foreignpolicy.com
|
On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 14:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
For reference.
Is there anything you would do different? The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. Show nested quote +There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com
PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion.
I've finished saying what I needed to say.
Edit: Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, your only option is for a violent solution. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you resigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choosing, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation.
|
On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 22 2019 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] The random quote (from someone I don't think anyone's ever mentioned prior?) ; + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2019 14:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:I'll start with a quote. Show nested quote +We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community. . was for reference, are you asking if I would do anything different than the quote or what? This isn't a promising start but I'll take the blame for that so far. I think it's important to stay focused so there's less room for miscommunication but yes I have disagreement s with the rest, my issues with 1 are minimal and I think we can clear them up so here goes: I mostly agree with 1. I've mentioned a lot about how I think that should happen referring to the scholars/activists/revolutionaries that articulated the ideas before me, namely, Freire as of late. He had both a literacy program and a political philosophy based around the concept of Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which, I take to mean the lifting of consciousness to a place where we recognize and act on our ability to make the world around us, not in some XMen kinda way, in a "being more fully human" and treating each other that way kinda way. The rub is how we make that happen (presuming you agree with Freire's conception of education).My position is that everything short of direct action is failing. I don't know if revolution is possible or probable or direct action will be enough, but I think the evidence demonstrates clearly that everything short of direct action is leading to certain climate catastrophe according to the best available information, even under the most optimistic scientific estimates. I don't mean to dodge the rest and if you want we'll get there, I just sincerely believe this makes the most sense as a starting point to establish good faith Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read. I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset. I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say.
So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them.
Seems you had more to say...
Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation.
You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed.
When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work?
Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations.
I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone and IgnE sorta.
Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists".
I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future?
With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan.
|
On July 23 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 22 2019 22:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Okay. So. To answer your post. The quote is from Haile Selassie. I assume you've heard of him. He hasn't been mentioned but is still a good read.
I agree with the raising consciousness of as many people as possible to where being critical of their surroundings is almost second nature. Where I find my issue is your second part. When you say direct action, I feel you're beingi intentionally misleading by not picking which arm of that you prefer. From what I gather, you prefer the violent direct action and not the nonviolent as you believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that has not worked and anything short of destroying the capitalist class through violence, is doomed from the outset.
I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. He has also said he wanted to “enter the education ministry with a flamethrower to remove Paulo Freire”, one of Brazil’s most famous educators whose ideas have had worldwide influence.
Mr Bolsonaro and other conservatives have said Freire’s legacy in schools turns students into “political militants”. Conservatives believe the late socialist intellectual's teaching methods encourage students to challenge traditional values such as family and the church. www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say. So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them. Seems you had more to say... Show nested quote +Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed. When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work? Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations. I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone. Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists". I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future? With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan.
I want your thoughts. What did you take away? What was your interpretation? Does it align with what you believed before or did you need to appropriate it all? Being inspired is not a bad thing. When you cannot express explicitly why it inspired you or your own personal take on it, then I care not to read your writing. I don't care what Freier wrote when I ask you for your own personal opinion. Giving me his opinion is not answering, but deflecting to someone else that explains you better than you do. And if that is the case, I'll just go read them and ignore you completely. But where does that leave you? An echo chamber of those who agree. And without dissenting opinions, you cannot reformulate your original hypothesis to make sure you cover all weaknesses.
I do (r)evolution because who knows which you will pick the next time something inspirational and world shattering will come along. Call it covering bases. I made no personal attacks, merely observations based on my conclusions that I have inferred from what I have read. I internalized and contemplated what you could possibly mean, researched some of your links, and stated my findings. That you think they were poetic is flattering and I appreciate it. I am an author of sorts on the side (novels and novellas with the odd poem or two sprinkled in every so often.)
I used to be a librarian. I understand the value of sourcing. But without your own words, you're merely plagiarizing. Innocently, but nonetheless.
|
On July 23 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I've repeatedly argued in favor of non-violent direct action. To be clear once again. I prefer nonviolent direct action. What I've mentioned is that when workers decided they wanted weekends and less deadly working conditions the capitalist class beat, shot, and bombed them (to name a few). I'm not sure what you're suggesting those workers are to do when it happens again? My concern is that there's no reason to believe the capitalists won't/aren't doing again. For instance, in Brazil the president has vowed to destroy and purge that very type of education we agree is critically needed with the support of the US government. Like basically he said he wanted to burn the books. [quote] www.independent.co.uk We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct? Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say. So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them. Seems you had more to say... Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed. When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work? Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations. I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone. Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists". I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future? With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan. I want your thoughts. What did you take away? What was your interpretation? Does it align with what you believed before or did you need to appropriate it all? Being inspired is not a bad thing. When you cannot express explicitly why it inspired you or your own personal take on it, then I care not to read your writing. I don't care what Freier wrote when I ask you for your own personal opinion. Giving me his opinion is not answering, but deflecting to someone else that explains you better than you do. And if that is the case, I'll just go read them and ignore you completely. But where does that leave you? An echo chamber of those who agree. And without dissenting opinions, you cannot reformulate your original hypothesis to make sure you cover all weaknesses. I used to be a librarian. I understand the value of sourcing. But without your own words, you're merely plagiarizing. Innocently, but nonetheless.
I'm trying to give you my thoughts but the entire framing is foreign to you so when I do you don't know what I'm talking about. So I was providing you the framing so that instead of asking what everything I say means you can reference the material and so that when I'm essentially paraphrasing something in my own words (with terms from the material) I'm not plagiarizing by trying to pass it off as an original thought (though lots of this stuff was along the lines of things I've thought for a long time).
I highly recommend and have several times that you (and anyone who claims to want to understand me better) do read the sources I've mentioned and I'll be happy to discuss with you where we agree with them and disagree?
+ Show Spoiler +I do (r)evolution because who knows which you will pick the next time something inspirational and world shattering will come along. This is nonsensical and I suspect based on a misreading of a previous post. I made no personal attacks, merely observations based on my conclusions that I have inferred from what I have read. Lol you wouldn't know why that's so funny to me but it's practically word for word something I've heard and had rejected when I used it I internalized and contemplated what you could possibly mean, researched some of your links, I'm not sure you did? and stated my findings. This right? + Show Spoiler +The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. That's why I'm trying to make sure your accusations are done or not? You seem to want to keep lobbing them but also refuse to engage in dialogue to clear it up?
EDIT: If I told you I wanted to discuss Socialist revolution Harry Potter can you imagine how hard that would be if you hadn't ever seen the movies or read the books but just watched the trailers after I mentioned it?
"Hagrid and Harry appeared to me to be an allegory for..."
"what's a hagrid?, how tall is 'very tall' is there a threshold?, I need to know Hagrid's height in your own words"
That help communicate my point at all?
|
On July 23 2019 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 04:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
We'll say you did, but with the views you hold on the outlook of anything meaningful happening as a result of it, you are now changing your stance to violent direct action if necessary. Correct?
Want to take a shot at the other points? Thank you for replying in good faith. Also @JimmiC What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent? Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know? The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say. So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them. Seems you had more to say... Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed. When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work? Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations. I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone. Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists". I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future? With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan. I want your thoughts. What did you take away? What was your interpretation? Does it align with what you believed before or did you need to appropriate it all? Being inspired is not a bad thing. When you cannot express explicitly why it inspired you or your own personal take on it, then I care not to read your writing. I don't care what Freier wrote when I ask you for your own personal opinion. Giving me his opinion is not answering, but deflecting to someone else that explains you better than you do. And if that is the case, I'll just go read them and ignore you completely. But where does that leave you? An echo chamber of those who agree. And without dissenting opinions, you cannot reformulate your original hypothesis to make sure you cover all weaknesses. I used to be a librarian. I understand the value of sourcing. But without your own words, you're merely plagiarizing. Innocently, but nonetheless. I'm trying to give you my thoughts but the entire framing is foreign to you so when I do you don't know what I'm talking about. So I was providing you the framing so that instead of asking what everything I say means you can reference the material and so that when I'm essentially paraphrasing something in my own words (with terms from the material) I'm not plagiarizing by trying to pass it off as an original thought (though lots of this stuff was along the lines of things I've thought for a long time). I highly recommend and have several times that you (and anyone who claims to want to understand me better) do read the sources I've mentioned and I'll be happy to discuss with you where we agree with them and disagree? + Show Spoiler +I do (r)evolution because who knows which you will pick the next time something inspirational and world shattering will come along. This is nonsensical and I suspect based on a misreading of a previous post. I made no personal attacks, merely observations based on my conclusions that I have inferred from what I have read. Lol you wouldn't know why that's so funny to me but it's practically word for word something I've heard and had rejected when I used it I internalized and contemplated what you could possibly mean, researched some of your links, I'm not sure you did? and stated my findings. This right? + Show Spoiler +The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. That's why I'm trying to make sure your accusations are done or not? You seem to want to keep lobbing them but also refuse to engage in dialogue to clear it up? EDIT: If I told you I wanted to discuss Socialist revolution Harry Potter can you imagine how hard that would be if you hadn't ever seen the movies or read the books but just watched the trailers after I mentioned it? "Hagrid and Harry appeared to me to be an allegory for..." "what's a hagrid?, how tall is 'very tall' is there a threshold?, I need to know Hagrid's height in your own words" Or the nuances of a Starcraft fight if you'd never played or watched a game? That help communicate my point at all?
Not at all because I know what you are talking about. Your inability to see why some have issues, is one of the root causes. I was reading john grisham, dean koontz, and behold a pale horse, in 4th grade (not that it matters but to reference your children analogy). You know how many times I consulted a dictionary?
Belittling my intelligence rewards you no points. You've answered my questions in a round-a-bout manner, I suppose. But don't think I won't call bullshit the second I smell it coming from you.
|
On July 23 2019 11:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 10:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 10:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 09:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 09:05 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2019 09:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 23 2019 08:46 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Also @JimmiC
What about the violence of the capitalists to retain their property? Suppose 80% of the population voted to nationalize or syndicalize most industries. Will the owners get violent?
Ah, but it's not 1917 anymore! We live in 21st century America. Why are we getting so abstract? If you want to be practical, let's get practical: who controls the military? Isn't that the first question you would want to know?
The rich and powerful don't need to get violent. They can just fire everyone. That wouldn't serve them any good, so they'd go to the table and discuss better conditions for the worker. The workers would then happily go back to work, knowing conditions are marginally better than they were before. And the people are the military. If you're talking about the MIC and materiel, then we're talking the government. Also, if you think that the military would willfully go against people seeking to make a better life for themselves here in the US, you're wrong. Sure, some would relish the excuse to murder anyone they disliked and knew they could get away with it. But those are all unlawful orders, punishable by court martial and death/imprisonment. Not a lot would choose that. But enough about hypothetical gotcha talking points. Are you going to answer any of my points or interject with quips and snide remarks? If you don't want to act in good faith, please stand aside. They might need to get violent if the people decide to expropriate their property . . . I am not sure you are really grasping here what revolution means. Isolated protests do not a revolution make. But I see the problem. It is impossible to imagine revolution in America. I cannot do it. Wouldn't revolution look more like an amendment to the Constitution? It would need to get so bad economically, we're talking Great Depression with 20% unemployment, for a revolution to start. But as long as Americans are "comfortable" and they can, for the most part, provide, then they won't rise. They might demonstrate on the white house lawn or march down the street. But we're not to that point yet. A revolution is possible, just not probable. I see them hiring mercenaries or a PMC before the US government goes in and does anything. They may raise the national guard to protect "order" and they might fuck up some people, but no one is going to fire a shot at overmatched opponent in the US. A constitutional amendment containing what, exactly? Have you completed your side of our other conversation? The US military has been increasingly composed of contractors before Trump was even running. There is one significant aspect of this doctrine, however, that is rarely mentioned by the media and never by Obama: the unprecedented use of private contractors to support foreign military operations.
Obama has authorized the continuation or re-emergence of two of the most contractor-dependent wars (or “overseas contingency operations” in Pentagon-speak) in U.S. history. As noted previously, there are roughly three contractors for every U.S. troops in Afghanistan, far above the contractor per uniformed military personnel average of America’s previous wars.
Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries.Under Obama, more private military contractors have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than all the U.S. troops deployed to those countries. foreignpolicy.com PMC and US military should be treated separately in my opinion. I've finished saying what I needed to say. So we're done with the "he doesn't answer questions/have a plan" trope from you? I don't want you to start repeating the same complaints later after passing up an opportunity to address them. Seems you had more to say... Just so we're clear. We left talking point 1 and went into another topic. I went along since we agree for the most part on the education aspect. The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. You're mistaken, we largely have abandoned direct action and I'm calling for it to be renewed. When I said that about leading this I meant I don't see myself as some sort of intellectual leader of the movement. I'm a pawn not a king if that makes sense? Not that I'm not willing to do the work? Exchanges here help me work through common objections I encounter in my work outside of TL and I also get to see other people's responses to them or how they see situations. I'm not sure how to explain the value of citing sources for ideas that aren't your own? Maybe there's a librarian here or something that can better articulate why I do that? It's basically giving credit to the people that inspire my positions (where I don't agree in entirety). As well as more practical than writing a dissertation as has been mentioned by Drone. Just because someone else has an idea doesn't mean agreeing is some sort of sin. If socialism says 2+2=4 I don't think I have to provide a proof for it, I can just agree with it and repeat it if asked. I should have a general understanding of the topic before I agree though, so that if they tell me 1+1=3 I can recognize the problem and say "while I agree 2+2=4 I disagree that 1+1=3. We need to discuss why this contradiction exists". I don't know what all the poetic personal attacks are about or why you're doing that (r)evolution thing but as long as you're unwilling to engage fruitfully I don't know why I should be forced to respond to your inquiries in the future? With that I'm concluding the complaints about not addressing your arguments/not having a plan will cease from you, if not we can pick up where we left off which was point 1. of our plan. I want your thoughts. What did you take away? What was your interpretation? Does it align with what you believed before or did you need to appropriate it all? Being inspired is not a bad thing. When you cannot express explicitly why it inspired you or your own personal take on it, then I care not to read your writing. I don't care what Freier wrote when I ask you for your own personal opinion. Giving me his opinion is not answering, but deflecting to someone else that explains you better than you do. And if that is the case, I'll just go read them and ignore you completely. But where does that leave you? An echo chamber of those who agree. And without dissenting opinions, you cannot reformulate your original hypothesis to make sure you cover all weaknesses. I used to be a librarian. I understand the value of sourcing. But without your own words, you're merely plagiarizing. Innocently, but nonetheless. I'm trying to give you my thoughts but the entire framing is foreign to you so when I do you don't know what I'm talking about. So I was providing you the framing so that instead of asking what everything I say means you can reference the material and so that when I'm essentially paraphrasing something in my own words (with terms from the material) I'm not plagiarizing by trying to pass it off as an original thought (though lots of this stuff was along the lines of things I've thought for a long time). I highly recommend and have several times that you (and anyone who claims to want to understand me better) do read the sources I've mentioned and I'll be happy to discuss with you where we agree with them and disagree? + Show Spoiler +I do (r)evolution because who knows which you will pick the next time something inspirational and world shattering will come along. This is nonsensical and I suspect based on a misreading of a previous post. I made no personal attacks, merely observations based on my conclusions that I have inferred from what I have read. Lol you wouldn't know why that's so funny to me but it's practically word for word something I've heard and had rejected when I used it I internalized and contemplated what you could possibly mean, researched some of your links, I'm not sure you did? and stated my findings. This right? + Show Spoiler +The characterization I'm speaking of is you saying that the workers, after decades of exploitation, fed up with the role of being proles, are taking action. Their non violent means have been ignored and now they are left with violent means. This is what you have implied. I stated I disagree and explained why in my posts to the other person who chimed in. I've concluded that, without means of a successful non-violent remedy, you're only option is for a violent. That while you are willing to stoke the fires, you are not willing to lead the charge. You find yourself incapable of gathering the needed bodies to form your (r)evolution of the political state the world finds itself in, so you consigned yourself to posting on TL and other places, hoping to spread your gospel, quoted mostly from other sources without your own opinions attached. I've also concluded, that while we may share a few understandings of what needs to be done, we are at an impasse on how it should begin, continue, and end.
I care not for quotes, but from your own fingertips, the truths you hold to be dear, about your (r)evolution. Quote all day and all night. Hearken back to your bandied about words. They hold little water in the larger scheme of things. Because you feel wronged or despair, so should we all. Because you feel the world needs to be remade in a vision of not your choose, but through the choices of others who tugged at your heart, you lash out with (r)evolutionary cries. That you feel the need to pontificate constantly, forces others to shun away and turn deaf ears to you.
And with that, good sir, I take my leave from this conversation. That's why I'm trying to make sure your accusations are done or not? You seem to want to keep lobbing them but also refuse to engage in dialogue to clear it up? EDIT: If I told you I wanted to discuss Socialist revolution Harry Potter can you imagine how hard that would be if you hadn't ever seen the movies or read the books but just watched the trailers after I mentioned it? "Hagrid and Harry appeared to me to be an allegory for..." "what's a hagrid?, how tall is 'very tall' is there a threshold?, I need to know Hagrid's height in your own words" Or the nuances of a Starcraft fight if you'd never played or watched a game? That help communicate my point at all? Not at all because I know what you are talking about. Your inability to see why some have issues, is one of the root causes. I was reading john grisham, dean koontz, and behold a pale horse, in 4th grade (not that it matters but to reference your children analogy). You know how many times I consulted a dictionary? Belittling my intelligence rewards you no points. You've answered my questions in a round-a-bout manner, I suppose. But don't think I won't call bullshit the second I smell it coming from you.
...what?
I'm not belittling your intelligence with the Harry Potter analogy, or at least that wasn't my intention. I was just picking a popular story. You can replace it with the Anne Rice Vampire series or whatever if that makes sense?
I'm trying to very specifically and clearly answer your questions , then you told me you're done engaging, and going to pick up randomly again without finishing where we left off and that doesn't sound very fruitful. I'm perfectly fine with you "call[ing] out bullshit" it's the demanding I engage with it I'd like to resolve.
EDIT: Duh moment: Imagine trying to explain to me who the good guy in "The Firm" is if I hadn't read the book or seen the movie and disagreed with you about the world building of the story being realistic?
That help?
EDIT2: If you know what I'm talking about, please just quote the socialist theory (or me pointing to it/describing it) I've provided thus far and articulate what you specifically disagree with or would like expanded on or put into my own words and I'll do my best to respond thoughtfully and thoroughly. I recommend returning to where we left off. If you just want to "call bullshit" as you see it, I simply request you allow me to choose when to engage with it rather than it become an issue needing of intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
