Yes, I know, but what do you expect me to say when you don't respond to any of my other arguments?
FrenLivesMatter
joined 1 year ago
Okay, so genocide in the past justifies genocide in the present? That means genocide in the present will justify genocide in the future. I'm not sure how we'll ever get to a better world that way.
Also, most, if not all of these things happened under colonialism. I'm not sure that it's accurate to blame capitalism for that. Rather, the problem appears to be concentration of power in the hands of government. The lesson appears to be that if you give a small number of people enough power to solve all your problems, they'll either murder their way to a solution or decide that you are the problem that needs to be solved. Doesn't matter if their coats are red, yellow, or blue.
What I don't understand is why communists don't spend more time trying to build decentralized networks. Lemmy is actually a good example of the kind of infrastructure there should be more of. But that's hard, thankless work, isn't it? And there's no guarantee of success either. I can see the appeal of mass murder, I really do, but do you really want to face your children one day and explain to them how murdering our way to a better life is just what we do, and if they don't do it first, someone else will murder them? I don't.
At least in capitalism, we try not to murder people systemically, because as you might now, that's kinda bad for business when it's found out. Not bad enough, you might say, because it keeps happening, but as it turns out, whenever it happens on a larger scale, it usually involves the government in one way or another.
No, the only way to ensure a future without government sponsored mass murder is to focus on decentralization. That's the only way the people can take power back into their own hands, by resisting the urge for any quick, and dare I say, "final" solutions, and working to educate others on how to be more self-sufficient instead.
Well I'm glad we can at least agree that genocide isn't ideal and generally a suboptimal way to solve any problems.
Straight from the manifesto, page 12:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Accuse me of picking and choosing the most salient passage, but I would say this doesn't leave too much room for interpretation about what the word "forcible" means. And no, you don't get to talk your way out by saying 'overthrowing the status quo via legislation enforced by police would be considered "by force", regardless of whether the police use violence.' Isn't ACAB a quintessentially leftist term? Or does it not apply when the police work for you instead of against you?
Also, just to give a counterexample to your "evil autocrat" problem: Gandhi managed to get rid of British colonial rule without ever advocating for or using violence. So no, the idea that violent oppression justifies a violent response is flawed. Violence always begets more violence, there is literally no exception. You can't murder your way to a fair and just society, it always ends in oppression.
Of course it is. Silly me, how could I forget.
How do you say "Please sign your comment with the GPG key for torvalds@kernel.org" in Finnish? Google Translate says "Allekirjoita kommenttisi GPG-avaimella osoitteeseen torvalds@kernel.org", is that correct?
Okay, honestly, would you eat a Bill Gates or Elon Musk? They don't look particularly tasty to me. Bezos maybe, he seems to be in good shape (although likely chock full of steroids), but the vast majority of them are frumpy old dudes or dudettes who probably taste like leather. I don't think that eating them would be particularly enjoyable.
This isn't about whether or not billionaires are essential, but whether getting rid of them would substantially change anything.
Assume, for instance, that we make owning (or earning) more than a billion dollars (per year) illegal by putting a 100% tax on every dollar afterwards. Then billionaires would simply move most of their assets abroad or find some other loophole that lets them avoid this, like setting up a bunch of smaller companies that each have $999 million. Unless the whole world follows suit, it won't change anything, and that's not going to happen because any country that's willing to give them a safe haven would make a killing by doing so.
Also, if this DID happen, what makes you think they'd continue to work trying to make more money and not just spend more time playing golf instead? Whatever revenue you'd expect in taxes would simply not occur because once there's no more incentive to earn more, there's no more incentive to produce. Ironically, it would probably lead to far more quasi-billionaires because other multi-millionaires would likely pick up the slack where the big guys throw the towel, but I don't see how regular people would benefit.
But perhaps you can explain what you have in mind?
Sounds like you forgot how to write proper English along with that.
Hope you're doing okay, bud. Try not to work so hard.
That reminds me of certain a Reddit or Twitter post some time ago where a recruiter literally told the creator of a certain library / framework that he didn't have the required amount of experience to get the job.
The big issue with "trying" communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that violent revolution is exactly what Marx said was essential in order to bring about the communist utopia he envisioned. That's precisely why communism has such a bad rep among anyone but edgy teenagers and college students. Are you telling me Marx was wrong about this? If so, please elaborate.
Okay, thanks for the link, but you act as if that was all I said, and I didn't just make a whole point about how the common denominator in every genocide is almost always the government.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but my goal isn't to win a debate on the Internet, it's to make people realize that any "us vs. them" mentality always inevitably leads to murder and bloodshed, and that any future generations will inevitably look back on it and be horrified, and then they'll be caught in the same dilemma that we are right now, which is figuring out whether violence in the past justifies violence in the presence.