this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
1013 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3406 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand why this is even a question. Is the tragedy of the commons not taught in american education? Is Land Clearance(one example of many linked) and Enclosure not taught? (Serious question open to anyone, I do not know what history is taught outside major european countries)
This is essential basic history to understand how land developed from being a collectively worked upon thing, decentralised, owned by everybody that worked on it, into something that was owned by a tiny tiny number of people so that they could exploit it to the maximum degree.
Decentralisation is the creation of a commons. The goal of corporations is centralisation of power and monopoly. They are at complete polar opposites in goals. The entire point of the fediverse in the first place is to destroy the centralised power of web corporations who took what was originally a digital commons populated by thousands of sites and communities and through a form of digital enclosure turned it into a space controlled by a handful of companies.
Learn history other than the popular military shit folks. It is essential in analysing what affects you.
As a product of American eduation, I can say resolutely that no, that was absolutely not taught.
Of course, this is partially because American education sucks and partially because we never HAD common land here: everything was privately owned, after it was stolen from the people who already lived here, and then most of it had people who had no say in the matter enslaved to work on it for the people who stole the land.
Of course, this is ALSO not really taught, because it'd make people feel sad and make the US look kinda bad, so it's always talked about but you get like, a week of coverage on both subjects, at most.
It saddens me to hear that kids in the US don't learn about the fuckups of their ancestors, as this might "upset" them. My kids here in Germany learn about the Holocaust and they take trips to concentration camps so they learn about the past. Not to guilt them or shame them, but to teach them, so history doesn't repeat itself. (And we're not even native Germans, we're east European immigrants.)
The problem here is conservatives call learning about our past mistakes "woke" and do everything in their power to remove this curriculum from our schools. For some reason, they look at it as "trying to destroy our great nation and traditional values" instead of "learning from our past to be a better country going forward."
Except military, which they teach A LOT, we spent maybe 5 days on the crimes we committed against Native Americans, but an entire month or more on the Revolutionary War. Hell, we spent longer on learning about "world religions" than we did all our mistakes. Plus, any WW1/WW2 war crimes committed by our side is not taught whatsoever.
Nationalism is a disease.
I'm probably going to get mega canceled here but I think a good portion of it is that the Holocaust is history.
A lot of what we don't talk about is how we treated the Native Americans because we're STILL shitting on them from on high. For example, the Dakota Access Pipeline is the same old shit, different century.
Also talking about how we've treated people of color, and any discussion around chattel slavery, ends up being "uncomfortable" because an awful lot of people in this country don't seem to see any problem with it and would be perfectly happy if we could toss out the civil rights acts and go back to having separate water fountains.
TLDR: it's 'history' in Germany because ya'll arrest people giving nazi salutes, but in the US wearing a KKK robe is "free speech".
It’s all but against the law in Florida (maybe other states as well?) to teach that aspect of history. Wouldn’t want the white kids to feel guilty for being white… because they know about things that happened in the past.
Agreed. American history is terribly white-washed.
Basically some dudes came over from England, Indians cooked them corn and turkey and everyone was happy. A few years later their descendants got mad at England, dressed up as the Indians and threw tea off a boat. Some shots were fired but we settled down over a piece of paper that guarantees freedom and guns for all.
Later you might learn that “all” means white land-owning males but eventually that got expanded and now we are al happy in the greatest country in the world (yes, that part is also taught), and every morning for 180 days of the year for 13 straight years we stand up and recite a poem about how much we love our country.
Maybe it’s changing, idk. I graduated the public school system 20 years ago. My kindergartener came home a few months ago saying he watched a video on MLK Jr in his class where they talked about his assassination. I thought that was a bit dark to go to in kindergarten but at least it’s talked about, even somewhat.
The whole point of the tradgedy of the commons is that publically owned finite resources don't work. You've completely misunderstood the point. If you're following that logic then centralization, ownership, and control is the only answer.
Of course none of that applies, because what is the finite resource here? Both Meta and the fediverse can co-exist without destroying each other for want of servers or network bandwidth. The only real finite resource here is human attention - in which case federating with meta should be a good thing. This is because it increases the amount of content available on both platforms with the less popular platform benefiting the most.
Christ.
They do not aim to coexist. They aim to enclose.
This is incredible levels of naivity. Like, literally completely and totally oblivious to how profit seeking works and what behaviours it creates.
And the tragedy of the commons was a crock of shit made by racist eugenicist colonial-minded fuckbags, that's the entire point of teaching it, as a way of understanding the kind of utter bullshit that gets spread when landgrabbers(in the modern day the corporations) want to go grabbing. This is why education is important, without it people go reading a wiki article and come to these kinds of nonsensical conclusions.
I didn't read an article about it, I watched a YouTube video about it from a science and maths youtuber originally. You also didn't elude to this in your first comment at all. I was actually going to reply to you telling you why it's a bad concept once I learned it's history.
I also don't get why your complaining to me about education. I don't control what gets taught in the UK (my home country), I just work with what I have.
I still don't see how it applies to this situation in any way.
Edit: also your username has Lenin in it. Are you a fucking tankie?
Define tankie for me? It's somewhat lost all meaning given that the Ukrainian government is calling the US government tankies now. This is a serious question for the record, I can't really say whether I am your definition of tankie or not without knowing it given that the definition seems to change for everyone.
Also since this is going to be political and we both live in the same country (I moderate /r/greenandpleasant), did you vote Corbyn or are you a tory?
Enclosure of the commons is 100% taught in the UK at GCSE level as part of the curriculum: https://www.tutor2u.net/history/reference/enclosure-elizabethan-england
Tankie is anyone that supports Lenin or anything more authoritarian marxist than that.
I didn't vote for Corbyn, because I wasn't old enough to vote at the time. (Was there even a general election at that time? I don't remember). It's a stupid question to ask given he hasn't been the leader of the labour party for years at this point.
I have never voted conservative. I think I voted green in the last election I voted in but don't remember. Didn't get to vote in the last local one as I was busy and forgot.
I never did history GCSE and I don't think most people did. You have to choose between that and other options like Geography so not everyone will be taught it.
So are you against the RMT railroad strikes because Mick Lynch publicly calls James Connolly his political hero and is an obvious marxist-leninist ?
Are you against Jeremy Corbyn, because he defends the Soviet Union and always has, and because he also promotes the Black Panthers who defended north korea (if you look in the corner of the video around 2:00 there's even a cute little soviet cccp statue).
Are you against Diane Abbott, because she's publicly defended Mao on national television.
Are you against John Mcdonnell who has said his job is to overthrow capitalism on the BBC, probably because he's quoted Mao and read his little red book in parliament?
Are you against the Durham miners gala? Where they march with communist banners and have done so for 137 years?
You have spent too much time in american anti-communist spaces where their brains are riddled with the historical legacy of two red scares, and you've spent absolutely zero time in British leftist spaces. You have riddled your mind with american brainworms against socialism and I implore you to join a union and actually go out and organise.
Hahahahahahahaha
Why on earth would you just assume something like that? That's completely ridiculous.
I actually became disillusioned from MLs partly by joining a Trotskyist organisation founded in England. Specifically Socialist Appeal which are part of the IMT.
Note I originally said I dislike Lenin and people who came after that (mao, stalin, trotsky, etc.). This is because I have seen what they do to other Communists they disagree with, and what China still does to real Marxists and Anarchists. Lookup Kronstadt if you want an example.
MLs only care about their specific subset of Marixst ideology and if you disagree you are imprisoned or killed. That's not communism, that's a cult!
I would hope that people like Jeremy Corbin are just mislead on the behavior of some of these people, and aren't up for a authoritarian "socialist" regime. Not that he is really relevant anymore anyway as I stated previously.
As for Marx I actually think he said some intelligent things for his time. That being said like his descendants he is too sectarian. I also think anarchists have some interesting ideas. That being said they all died long ago. I don't think it's healthy or progressive to hang on their every word as absolute truth - that's called religion. Religion should have no place in politics.
The jokers that don't actually do any organising at all and do nothing but show up to everyone else's events, put up their branding to make it look like they're involved and sell papers? Those ones? The ones literally everyone in the UK left hates because they contribute absolutely fucking nothing while larping and piggybacking on actual organising others do?
Not surprised then.
Kinda bizarre for you to be a trot and hate Lenin though. Trots love Lenin. Trotskyism isn't anti-authority either, in fact Trotsky's book literally says he would have done everything the Soviet Union did do. Have you actually read any Trotsky?
What? Anarchism is very alive in the UK they just don't participate electorally.
Uhh.. You realise it was Trotsky that wiped out the anarchists in the Kronstady Rebellion right?
A lot of this sounds a lot like you're making stuff up, only half know certain details, and are generally winging it through this conversation. It's ok to say you don't know something.
You didn't actually answer my question about the demsocs above. Are they all tankies to you?
You've completely misinterpreted half of what I said. I am not a Trotskyist! I left that group because it was all bullshit.
That's why I am against Leninists.
I never said Anarchists died long ago. I am trying to say people like Marx, Krapotkin, and Bakunin died long ago.
Some of them aren't relevant and the other half I have never heard of. So I am not gonna render and option there.
Right so you're right wing, a liberal and an anti-socialist then. Got it. I wish we'd gotten to this point 10 messages ago it would have wasted a lot less time.
What? I hate the right wing! The fuck is wrong with you?
I want socialism, I just don't support Leninists. I also think we need new ideas in the left wing rather than relying on people that died a 100 years ago. Reading Marx or Krapotkin is great but we can't just rely on them, we need to accept that they are limited by the time they lived in. Plus who actually likes reading old English?
I actually like the idea of market socialism and workplace democracy. It's the closest thing to a real economic model for socialism I have seen. I believe anarcho-syndicalism is similar to this but I am not really sure, my understanding of anarchism is fairly limited.
You really need to stop assuming that anyone who isn't an ML is a right wing person. I also don't get why you jump to random conclusions and misinterpret everything I say. It's like you want me to fit in one of several boxes in your head because it's easier to deal with that than actually talk to a real person.
I didn't. I very clearly laid out a bunch of lukewarm socdems who hold positions you would call them tankies for and go about your usual wrecker shit.
Your views on what socialism actually is are a mess, you have winged it through half the conversation because you barely understand the basic theory, and you very obviously don't understand what the difference is between several of these groups.
"Gravity is an old theory and we should accept that it is just something Newton came up with nearly 400 years ago and move on from it." Clown shit.
I think anyone who supports Stalin and Stalinism is an idiot at best. If you don't agree with me I really don't know what to tell you. I can understand Jeremy Corbin saying that comparing him to hitler is unnecessary as they aren't on the same level. Saying someone isn't as bad as Hitler isn't the same as saying you support them.
Okay what do you think socialism is?
As far as I am concerned it's where the workers control the means of production. If the government controls the means of production that government needs to be controlled by the people or else it isn't socialism!
That's why the USSR under Stalin can barley be called socialist, because Stalin had an outsized influence on the government. He could get you killed for disagreement with him.
You're really gonna argue physics with me?
Newton had great ideas, just like Marx had great ideas. Newton's equations though have largely been replaced by Einstein and his theory of relativity. It gives more precise understanding of the way forces and gravity work than Newton could dream of. Likewise Einstein was wrong about quantum physics and things like the behavior of light.
In a science we don't just sit on our laurels and blindly repeat past scientists. We constantly test, refine, improve, or reject old ideas.
We should be treating Marx like we treat Newton or Einstein. Had some great ideas, some are still true, some are close but need further refinement, some are just straight up wrong. That's the difference between an academic and a religious person.
Which of his books have you read? I suspect none. Why exactly do you feel authoritative on the subject without any actual knowledge?
Ok, but you called SWCC borderline fascism while stating you like titoism, despite both having more or less identical political and economic structures. The main difference being inclusion of MZT in the Chinese strain while that isn't present in Tito's strain. You kinda just sidestepped this when I brought it up and have avoided it ever since. What do you actually know about the fundamental structure of their electoral system? Why do you call it borderline fascism?
Yes and that's what marxism also does, which is why marxist-leninist theory today is not the same as it was when marx wrote his ideas, or when lenin contributed, or stalin, or mao, or tito, etc etc. You are once again demonstrating an extremely poor knowledge of the subject matter, marxism is a science, and marxist-leninists are not dogmatic.
You are literally describing the marxist-leninist approach. If what you said about being a member of Socialist Appeal is true then I suspect your experience was cult-like and dogmatic, and this probably coloured all of your views. It probably also doesn't help that they don't actually do anything of value except grift off of everyone else's work. (not true of some of the other international branches of socialist appeal, but certainly true of the UK one).
I wish you were a little more honest about what you do and don't know, and less of your responses felt like winging it on certain topics while hoping someone who has actually read the material won't notice. It would make it much easier to root out what the problem here is, and why you seem to hate literally every socialist that exists except the liberals that wear the aesthetics while spending all of their time engaged in nothing but anti-socialism.
I have never heard if Tito or Tionism. How could I have argued about someone I have never heard of. Maybe I described his ideas without calling him by name?
What SWCC? Any searches I ran came up with organisations not related to socialist politics.
I think you might be right about socialist appeal. People have actually called them a cult before. It wouldn't surprise me if they have turned people off marxism before. The issue is they are probably the best at recruiting young people, they were the only polticial organization to show up at my university for instance. They also have posters everywhere.
Liberals? What do you mean by liberals? If you mean the American party then I don't like them either, though they do beat the republicans. If you mean libertarian then all anarchists and even some marxists are libertarian. So are right wing capitalists and some people in between. It's a very broad term that basically equates to freedom of speech and some other freedoms.
I hope you don't actually support Stalin though. From what I have been told what he wrote in his theory is somewhat reasonable, but dosen't at all match what he actually did. The writing was mere propaganda. I have also spoken to people from ex-soviet countries, they basically all hate the USSR. It's what caused a friend if mine to stop being a Marixst-Leninist.
You are right that I haven't read much theory. Theory is incredibly boring especially given it's mostly in older English and hard to understand. Poltitics isn't something I plan to do for a living - at least not any time soon.
I have yet to see any evidence that marxism is a science. I also don't believe modern capitalist economics is a science either. I have a very high bar for these things. When has marxism done controlled studies of different economic or polticial systems? If you have never done a controlled study then your not a science. Maybe there are some studies on this that I don't know about. I would love if you could show me some.
Turns out I have you mixed up with someone else. Sorry.
This actually makes a complete mess of the conversation for me because I'm not sure entirely what I said that was responding to you correctly and what I mixed up with the user who brought up liking Tito.
Let's throw away the part where I called you a liberal, and some of the other accusations of not knowing what you're talking about. This was mostly caused by the other conversation I was having.
Hmm 70% good, 30% bad. There's a lot of historical context that needs to be considered, 2 world wars, 2 revolutions and a civil war supported by all the capitalist powers of the world. Also the fact that they were doing something nobody had ever done before, with no idea of the "what not to do" things. Mistakes were absolutely made. But at the same time you have to discard the rampant propaganda that portrays this man as a cartoon villain, the trots are absurd for this and the capitalists are obviously unreliable because they want him to be a villain for the fact it also makes socialism a villain. The reality is much more balanced. Winston Churchill is a bigger monster than he ever was and I don't think you view him through the weird "evil monster" lens created by the narrative and environment we have surrounding this man.
The ones that were under 10 at the end of the USSR should be discarded as irrelevant. They claim to have lived it but were too young to remember and grew up during a capitalist storm of anti-socialism. The capitalists who were disempowered (and their descendants) should also be carefully disregarded, such as the Cuban gusanos of Florida who are all basically descendants of the bourgeoisie who lost their businesses and land when the communists took power. Those that should be listened to? Anyone that was 20+ at the time the USSR disbanded, and the genuine working class rather than migrant bourgeoise elements
I strongly recommend interview videos like these ones, which include the bad and the good, to see and build an idea from the people who actually lived it. https://youtu.be/ui11x8vLQFI https://youtu.be/mGUAIwlVR9A https://youtu.be/rfrtr9hAFYs
You've not read Engels then? Socialism: Utopian and Scientific forms the basis of explaining this, and compares it to utopian socialism which is not at all scientific, mainly idealism.
A science is just a body of theories grounded in a materialist analysis that produces predictable and reproducible results. When it is not predictable or reproducible other theories are then evaluated, and so on and so forth.
There are three main parts to Marxian methodology which are interdependent on each other. These are the Labour Theory of Value, Materialist Conception of History and the theory of class struggle. The Labour Theory of value sets out the economic laws which regulate commodity production under capitalism. The Materialist Conception of History places the productive relationships of commodity production, wage labour and capital in the setting of history. And class struggle provides the setting for explaining social evolution in terms of a revolutionary process. All of this are analysed in a materialist rather than idealist way, and if/when results are not predictable we either evaluate whether the material conditions have been incorrectly analysed or whether the theory itself needs adjusting. We reject dogmatism and constantly reassess and adjust as things have changed historically, Marx existed pre-industrial revolution afterall.
Your experience with Socialist Appeal and the manner in which they treat Trotsky as a god and Stalin as a demon is itself incredibly dogmatic bordering on cultlike religious attitudes. We don't. We take the bad, we take the good, and we aim to analyse things clinically without moralising.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/ui11x8vLQFI
https://piped.video/mGUAIwlVR9A
https://piped.video/rfrtr9hAFYs
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Huh this is neat. Nitter for youtube? I can see good reason for this with them banning people who use adblockers (although I added a script that gets around it on like day 1 lol).
@areyouevenreal @Lenins2ndCat
The Tragedy of the Commons is a cherry-picked economic fantasy. It is counter to what really happened, and, thus, false evidence for any point.
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3113/buck_NoTragedy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
@areyouevenreal @Lenins2ndCat
Hardin, the author of the Tragedy of the Commons was also a White Supremacist who was horrible enough to earn his own entry at the SPLC.
Normally, it's genetic fallacy to criticize the source of an argument. But here, the "Tragedy" has been used to justify not honoring treaties, theft of land and resources, polluting indigenous lands, and even genocide.
There is an unspoken bigotry in the argument that deserves recognizing it as racist.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/garrett-hardin
What is "Tragedy of the Commons?" Is that a new concept?
The Tragedy of the Commons was a bullshit piece of justification for the enclosures written by racist colonial-minded eugenicists that resulted in the theft of land from the people and ultimate consolidation of that land as private property in the hands of the landowners. It argued that this was necessary because otherwise the hordes of drooling peasants would destroy it.