|
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 24 2019 00:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] If you say so. [quote] You're definitely wrong still? [quote] "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. [quote] What? [quote] Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. [quote] No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. [quote] Sure... [quote] Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? [quote] This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. [quote] 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 [quote] Yeah, but to what end? [quote] Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I. I'm trying but I'm not going to "clarify" something you made up when you won't even clarify the term you made up? "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution" in what context? Those could be references to anything from the American revolution to the Iranian revolution, to the Russian revolution, and so on. Just get someone else to do the engaging/moderating of communication (not warnings and bans) and that would help. We're having severe communication issues that very well may be entirely my fault but I'm doing my best to communicate with you and practically everyone else understands (that has opined) except you and I don't know how else besides that to resolve that contradiction at this point. Your second paragraph is exactly what I'm asking you to clarify. When you jump into a conversation and say that won't work, only a ]"violent revolution" or "bloody revolution", what do you mean? That is our issue with communication.
I would need an example (quote, which shouldn't be hard to find if I do it all the time) because like every other example thus far you probably misunderstood what I said (which means I failed to communicate with you).
Taking a wild guess at what you mean I'd say that:
We need to enact a strategy of (I'm going to be explicitly clear as I can here) non-violent direct action to achieve the baseline goals we need to minimize impending catastrophic climate collapse future generations will be helpless to deal with.
I suspect when we do this the capitalist class will react violently as they have in the past.
We must be prepared to defend ourselves.
That's what I mean.
|
On July 24 2019 00:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 23:58 Zambrah wrote:
We could also chase them down into their doomsday bunkers and seal them in. I'm sure they're more luxurious than 99.999% of the world's housing anyways.
Just like violently removing a rowdy drunk from a bar doesn't require slashing his throat with a broken beer bottle, getting the bouncer to toss his ass out works fine. Except the capitalist class is not just billionaires, and unless you believe they are part of a secret cabal that controls everything getting rid of those 1000 people wouldn't do anything. Not to mention these people have all of law enforcement and armies because most of the world doesn't see them as bond villains. So how many people do you suspect would die even with your plan?
I think chasing the people who can afford lavish doomsday islands and shit into aforementioned islands and shit is a good first step. Also, having a personal army feels like a SUPER villain thing to do. If they don't want to be seen as Bond villains the doomsday bunkers and private armies are poor choices, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
no you haven’t, you have yet to provide a quote of him using those phrases. that is the absolute LEAST you could do. and i’m waiting for it. because frankly after dragging us through a page of garbage posts, you sure as shit ought to be able to produce one. i won’t bother reading the rest of your argument because you have yet to defend its premise. that GH does so is quite generous.
you come here claiming he sucks more dick than a pornstar and i absolutely demand you explain yourself. it’s disgusting, honestly. and untoward. and that sort of insult just has no place in this thread. that’s the problem with you, you make unsubstantiated claims and refuse to defend them.
|
|
|
Are you sure the people with the crazy doomsday bunkers don't also have their own personal hookup with Blackwater and other frightening corporations likely to have Black or Dark or another scary color in their names, I could see em having some platoons stationed away for personal use and defence at their personal resort-bunkers
|
On July 24 2019 00:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 23:58 Zambrah wrote:
We could also chase them down into their doomsday bunkers and seal them in. I'm sure they're more luxurious than 99.999% of the world's housing anyways.
Just like violently removing a rowdy drunk from a bar doesn't require slashing his throat with a broken beer bottle, getting the bouncer to toss his ass out works fine. Except the capitalist class is not just billionaires, and unless you believe they are part of a secret cabal that controls everything getting rid of those 1000 people wouldn't do anything. Not to mention these people have all of law enforcement and armies because most of the world doesn't see them as bond villains. So how many people do you suspect would die even with your plan?
If you change the laws so that you cannot own companies anymore (and deal with all the millions of repercussions that has), then the capitalist class disappears without a single drop of blood being spilt, right (at least in theory...)? You don't need to murder every small business owner to get rid of "the capitalist class".
|
On July 24 2019 00:34 brian wrote:
no you haven’t, you have yet to provide a quote of him using those phrases. that is the absolute LEAST you could do. and i’m waiting for it. because frankly after dragging us through a page of garbage posts, you sure as shit ought to be able to produce one. i won’t bother reading the rest of your argument because you have yet to defend its premise. that GH does so is quite generous.
you come here claiming he sucks more dick than a pornstar and i absolutely demand you explain yourself. it’s disgusting, honestly. and untoward. and that sort of insult just has no place in this thread. that’s the problem with you, you make unsubstantiated claims and refuse to defend them.
To be honest, I wouldn't at this point, if I wasn't under the impression from moderation that I had to *shrug*
On July 24 2019 00:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 00:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 00:20 JimmiC wrote:On July 24 2019 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor.
[quote]
It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately.
[quote]
I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire.
[quote]
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)?
With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning.
I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I. I'm trying but I'm not going to "clarify" something you made up when you won't even clarify the term you made up? "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution" in what context? Those could be references to anything from the American revolution to the Iranian revolution, to the Russian revolution, and so on. Just get someone else to do the engaging/moderating of communication (not warnings and bans) and that would help. We're having severe communication issues that very well may be entirely my fault but I'm doing my best to communicate with you and practically everyone else understands (that has opined) except you and I don't know how else besides that to resolve that contradiction at this point. Your second paragraph is exactly what I'm asking you to clarify. When you jump into a conversation and say that won't work, only a ]"violent revolution" or "bloody revolution", what do you mean? That is our issue with communication. I would need an example (quote, which shouldn't be hard to find if I do it all the time) because like every other example thus far you probably misunderstood what I said (which means I failed to communicate with you). Taking a wild guess at what you mean I'd say that: We need to enact a strategy of (I'm going to be explicitly clear as I can here) non-violent direct action to achieve the baseline goals we need to minimize impending catastrophic climate collapse future generations will be helpless to deal with. I suspect when we do this the capitalist class will react violently as they have in the past. We must be prepared to defend ourselves. That's what I mean. Just to clarify It is your position that if we as a populace elect a bunch of left leaning people (because of education, cultural shifts and so on), and they enact rules about what can be done environmentally, (huge taxes on pollution, road taxes, air travel so on), create circular economies, Make rules that push down the generational wealth through massive estate taxes and so on. And then move to a system where the workers own most of the production through co-ops. That at some point along the continuum, the current people with all the wealth will revolt and start this violent revolution?
Yes (though I wouldn't say it like that for obvious reasons). Like I said, they beat and killed people for wanting weekends. Why do you find that so hard to imagine?
Additionally your/that plan, according to the best available science, kills millions, displaces ~a billion, and doesn't ever actually stop the climate from getting worse. I think that's a catastrophic failure of what you're articulating.
elect a bunch of left leaning people
This is easier said than done otherwise Bernie would have won the nomination in 2016 instead of the candidate openly sponsored by US oligarchs like the Waltons.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On July 23 2019 23:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2019 23:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 23 2019 23:30 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:11 KwarK wrote:
Pretty sure Stalin was a Stalinist. He certainly would not have claimed to have been a socialist though, you gotta remember that the Bolsheviks thought the Mensheviks were gutless cowards who refused to seize the reins of history. They did not view non revolutionary socialists kindly. I'll leave him in their since he was all about his own power and not actually about the ideology. So he's not relevant to socialism at all then? What do you mean by relevant? To me he is relevant in that he is a black mark on what I believe Socialism to be. So I would love to disavow him so I never have to explain that when I'm talking about socialism I'm not talking about having Stalin, Maduro or Kim running things. I really don't understand the leftist's that defend these horrible people, what they claim their ideology is does not mean squat to me.
No leftist defends Stalin, Stalin is only ever brought up as an example of socialism by people who don't know what socialism is. I mean your initial point was that stalin maduro kim etc are authoritarians who aren't actual socialists but who claim to be to inspire popular support. And while simplified I can agree with that. The issue is that it's not leftists that try to tie these people towards leftist ideology (at least not for Stalin or Kim, people like Chavez and Castro have a bit more genuine support.)
Now, leftists might still say things like 'the soviet union during stalin industrialized at an extremely impressive pace' or 'venezuela under chavez made progress on many fronts' or 'cuba vastly outperformed comparable countries in terms of education (literacy rate) and health care (doctors/1000 inhabitants/child mortality etc) during the first decades of Castro's rule)'. But this is not really a defense of either. Stalin is the type of human that makes me question 'the concept of evil is a human construct', he intentionally starved millions and tortured his closest associates for fun. But the soviet union DID also go from being a feudalistic pre-industrial society in 1917 to (in my opinion) winning the space race 44 years later. This is not a defense of Stalin; it's an attack on, for example, the idea that 'you need capitalism for creativity to thrive' (a fairly common argument). Likewise pointing towards Cuba's literacy rates or very good (for such a poor country) health care is no defense of the authoritarianism and jailing/torture of political dissidents (very legitimate reasons to be deeply critical of Castro) - but it adds much needed nuance to the idea that 'socialism/communism turned cuba into a shithole' (not an uncommon argument).
Basically whenever these actors are 'defended' it's usually a combination of 'other political side attaches these actors to my ideology, leftists generally disagree but to the degree there's truth to it, here are areas where countries where these actors enacted socialist policies and how in that particular regard, they might have done better than capitalist countries having a similar point of departure/ and sometimes it's an attack on the performance of capitalistic countries / or saying that you can't detach the performance of these countries from cold war geopolitics which was hugely influential in determining the economic fortunes of countries.. etc..
Stuff is nuanced, sometimes far too nuanced for anyone to bother fully fleshing out a comprehensive ideology or how to achieve said ideology in the real world, especially on an internet forum. The post I just made now could easily have been 20 times as long without making a different argument - merely through providing more meat to the bone of it. Whenever there are holes, don't assume the worst.
|
For me socialism means democratic control over the economy rather than simply state control, which is what the Soviet Union had. Labor unions, cooperatives, nationalizations, regulations and anti-trust legislation are all ways to achieve this goal, but I think different arguments are to be made for when to apply each. Much of this hinges on a democratically organized society, which the USA clearly is not, and also on the elimination of “global capital”, i.e. private actors that can direct the economy in an undemocratic fashion.
The example of Stalin shows the downsides of an undemocratic socialism, while also demonstrating the benefits of state intervention in the economy. But I think a planned economy is somewhat tangential to the question of socialism, while on the other hand more relevant to issues such as the climate crisis. For instance, without state planning you can’t address the climate crisis as far as I know.
|
On July 24 2019 00:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 00:14 brian wrote:On July 23 2019 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 23:29 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2019 13:07 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] If you say so. [quote] You're definitely wrong still? [quote] "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. [quote] What? [quote] Nope, just that questions you ask, arguments you make, and your inability to recognize when you're given answers. [quote] No, like people familiar with the material or prepared to enter good faith dialogue. [quote] Sure... [quote] Did I say that or did you make it up like the other positions you want me to defend? [quote] This is silly and irreverent but I'm competitive and confident so that could be fun. [quote] 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 [quote] Yeah, but to what end? [quote] Am I just not going to get an explanation of the "socialist class"? A lot of people have "trouble understanding your answers" because telling people where to go read does not answer your opinion on something. And if you can't explain it yourself, you probably don't have a firm grasp on it. I can explain myself fine and it's pretty much down to you and zero lodging this complaint with any vigor. You're probably going to find this hard to believe, but you post a ton and I'm not really going to dig through it a millions times. What you could easily say is "I believe that we need to do X with Israel and Palestine and if it doesn't work we will keep trying or do this. Not "if it doesn't work violent revolution or "voluntary relocation". And if you do believe that great, no more need to discuss, I would likely agree, and you won't need to keep referencing it. But if you do want one, man up and explain who are the targets and how the new world order will actually operate, at a high level. Who will make decisions? How will they be chosen? What will happen to those who disagree? Just the basics. It's never that easy with you. But being the US politics thread my basic position is that the US should stop arming and funding Israel immediately. If it's the Palestinians that are the problem it seems to me Israel should be anywhere else and the problem is solved. After all, many Jews died because they didn't want to leave Germany in the first place.
It seems a voluntary relocation of Israel and future settlements into Germany alleviates the conflict and surely Germany would welcome them. Though if not Germany, certainly the US could take them in and eliminate the conflict without committing genocide. If Israel decided to expand it's borders within the US I'm sure the US wouldn't mind. I vaguely remember that (the link to it's context would be helpful), it was me articulating options other than genocide of Palestinians that people declared inevitable so we might as well stop thinking of alternatives iirc. Hence the "eliminate the conflict without committing genocide.". It was also supposed to be tongue in cheek satire. I was using socialist class to describe those who claim to have socialist values to mask their authoritarianism and get uninformed people from other countries to support him by claiming vast conspiracies. Examples would be Maduro and his Government. NK government, China but lessor now since they have mostly stopped pretending to be socialists, people like Stalin and so on.
Kwark pointed out one reason he thinks this is silly but now that I know what you mean I'm not understanding your question? Was Che Guevara part of the socialist class? Castro? Black Panthers? Is there a threshold of authoritarianism that separates the "socialist class" you're talking about and genuine socialists (whomever you deem them to be)? With "capitalist class" you can reference Marx or the article I provided if you want details, where can I go for more people talking/info about "the socialist class" as you're describing them as a "class" Is it just nations/nations leaders that are part of the "socialist class" or "the people in the uniforms from other countries supporting them in response to claims of vast conspiracies" part of the "socialist class" too? Who makes decisions for the "socialist class"? just the basics ya know? It's just one term you (seem to have created?) used and it still isn't clear what you're talking about. I would suggest it's because it's something you've recently constructed in your mind whereas capitalist class or Bourgeoisie (whichever is clearer to you) is a term with over a century of work on defining just who it is and why, the words I'm using and the meanings they carry don't originate from me, in part because then you end up doing things like you did with "socialist class". Which is making up a term to describe a grouping that you haven't even clearly set out the boundaries of in your own mind, let alone considered the faults of such reasoning. I have made up a word just for this site too btw, raycism (EDIT: dawned on me that not having to use it recently is a significant mark of progress imo), so I'm not expecting more from you in creating a word/term than I asked of myself. You mean you want more details? You don't just want me to throw out terms and make bold proclamations? Go figure. This is my big issue with you in general. You expectations for what others should do is completely different from how you view what you need to do. I don't have a problem with you using terms I'm unfamiliar with, it's just if you made them up and they appear to be a misnomer there's not really anywhere to go if you don't describe them (since you made it up rather than pulling it from more than a century of scholarship like mine). That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is a distinction. Because it is a very wide swath of people that you have said needs to be removed, if not willingly (which you say won't happen) violently. Then I say "so this means killings of millions?" and you say no. But there are millions in the Capitalist class. So there is some sort of logical failing here. I try to get you to walk me through it and you say I need to read 100's of years of writing. Which I'm not going to do because it still won't get me from violently removing this group of millions, without killing millions. It's really tiresome that you keep assigning me positions I haven't taken and seem to have zero accountability for it. Stop saying that I've said a very wide swath of people must be removed (or quote it so I can clarify like the Israel thing that was clearly you misunderstanding the post). I haven't. Get that part right and the rest should fall in place. How about you clarify instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is not a hard thing to do on ones position. What do you mean by "violent revolution" or "bloody revolution"? Conversely if you don't want to explain what you mean simply stop bringing it up and so will I. that you are shoving words in his mouth with the expectation he defend them after also claiming, in your own words, that GH ‘expects more from others than he does himself’ is so glaringly hypocritical that i have second hand embarrassment. it is expected of you to do as much as you’re asking of him, in your very own words. put up or shut up. literally. Actually I'm literally answering every question he asks. And simply asking him to clarify his position. Not only has GH not explained how a violent revolution won't kill millions. Including millions of innocents no one else has. So if this is what you want that is the cost. Either own it or stop saying it. It is not difficult. Basically everyone else is saying "when he says he wants a bloody revolution so stop climate change he doesn't mean all these people die." What? Have you followed the logic through in this at all? You can't have an American violent revolution that doesn't kill millions, let alone a global one. It can't happen. So you have to say, I understand that Millions if not billions will die many of them innocent, but because I firmly believe that without this the world will die it is necessary. At that point you can get into the is it necessary, and will the Chemo kill the cancer. (in this case will the world war save the planet or kill it in the process). And then once the giant power vacuum exists how are you going to fill it with someone not like Stallin or Maduro? I think the right person to lead a violent revolution is porbably not the same person to lead to a new socialist world order at least how I envision it. + Show Spoiler +To my ideal, people keep working on educating and removing ignorance about all targets. We mobilize politically as a younger generation who has different values. We try to move every country to governments similar to what is in Scandinavia and study how and why their cultures work in these ways and try to replicate it. We stop trying to use force and violence to make peace. It doesn't work and continuing to push for it no matter how noble your thought at the end of the tunnel is, it basically never works and the cost of human life and suffering is not worth the risk that this time the new people who get power will be better than the old people (meet the old boss same as the new boss. The Who).I'm a firm believer in checks and balances in Government because the enemy isn't capitalism or communism the enemy is authoritarianism and corruption.
GH: I'm calling for a non-violent revolution with the acceptance that the entrenched Capitalist class will inevitably respond to this with violence, and thus advocate a willingness to fight in defense of the revolution.
JC: WHEN WILL GH DEFEND HIS CALLS FOR VIOLENT, BLOODY REVOLUTION? I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS LEADING THIS REVOLUTION (THAT HE DEFINITELY IS ADVOCATING FOR) IMMEDIATELY!!!
GH: I... never said that?
JC: YES YOU DID! DEFEND THIS IMMEDIATELY AND STOP DODGING!!!! ALSO WHAT IS A CAPITALIST ANYWAY???
That's what the last few pages have been, JC. You consistently demanding GH defend things he never said, and refusing to explain when he 'did'. You're doing the exact same thing people on the Far Right do to force people on the left to defend things they've never said either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 24 2019 02:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 00:56 Acrofales wrote:On July 24 2019 00:17 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2019 23:58 Zambrah wrote:
We could also chase them down into their doomsday bunkers and seal them in. I'm sure they're more luxurious than 99.999% of the world's housing anyways.
Just like violently removing a rowdy drunk from a bar doesn't require slashing his throat with a broken beer bottle, getting the bouncer to toss his ass out works fine. Except the capitalist class is not just billionaires, and unless you believe they are part of a secret cabal that controls everything getting rid of those 1000 people wouldn't do anything. Not to mention these people have all of law enforcement and armies because most of the world doesn't see them as bond villains. So how many people do you suspect would die even with your plan? If you change the laws so that you cannot own companies anymore (and deal with all the millions of repercussions that has), then the capitalist class disappears without a single drop of blood being spilt, right (at least in theory...)? You don't need to murder every small business owner to get rid of "the capitalist class". I agree, I'm all for the legal and political route.
And you think this won't be opposed, possibly by state violence?
I mean, imagine an AOC-esque politician (young charismatic and outspoken) and advocates for an End to Capital. This idea gains some popularity and Occupy Wallstreet starts organizing peaceful marches in support of this idea. Do you think this politician will get railroaded and the marches stopped by police?
In other words, *is* there a peaceful option? Or should the marchers "exercise their 2nd amendment rights"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
