Off Lemmy I've already been assured by several dickhead accelerationists that this is actually bad, because it's against the rules to successfully progress a liberal democracy when the One Right Way to effect change is revolution only. They'd rather people suffer more if it meant an end to capitalism, revolting "ends justify the means" mentality.
Those people have such a lust for violence and don't care that the poor people they claim to be fighting for will be the ones who suffer most
"Why won't you die so I can avenge you‽"
But when I think about it, those poor people are absolutely fucked right now. By achieving small victories like these they get nothing. We have luxurious lifestyles, while the poorest don't even eat.
Fuck capitalism. House and feed everyone first, then play pretend with numbers.
Fuck capitalism, I agree. But I don't see where a county with any other economic system was ever chomping at the bit to sacrifice to feed the poorest in the world either.
Be angry, but realistic. Don't fetishize revolutions. Revolutions generally kill quite a lot of people, the vast majority of whom are not members of the ruling class
Ok, so can we agree to do those things without killing anyone who disagrees and then spending a few decades "protecting the revolution" with a "dictatorship of the whatever?"
Subjugating people is a terrible way to liberate them. Full stop. If you want socialism, then the only viable and sustainable path is convincing people to vote for socialism. Which is why tankie extremists are socialism's worst enemy.
Who said anything about force?
We can just spend resources to build sustainable habitats and farms for everyone.
Where is the subjugation?
Idk seems like referendums work so we don't need all that other stuff.
Yes… let the incrementalism flow through you.
They're certainly not bulletproof. It's obviously been a hot sec at this point, but Proposition 8 in California of all places codified marriage as exclusively being between a man and a woman when it was legalized by the California Supreme Court.
Continuing in California, Proposition 13, which froze property taxes so long as ownership is maintained but allows that frozen rate to be transferred to family, has essentially created a situation where the state is subsidizing homeowners that are already substantially wealthier than the average person while also legally enshrining a class of people who pay much less tax by virtue of inheritable status. The perverse economic effects are rather obvious.
Referendums can be great, but voters are also generally going to be inherently selfish. Local control of zoning and housing policy, just to shit on California one more time, has resulted in a massive housing crisis. There are situations where it's really important for lawmakers to choose the path that inconveniences everyone a little bit but solves a problem over the path where no individual is directly inconvenienced while the root problem only gets much worse. In Game Theory terms, referendums are very bad at handling prisoner's dilemma style situations, since voters will generally pursue their own immediate interests.
It's because these people don't actually care about socialism or equality. You can tell, because they don't ever talk about those things. It's all's fantasizing about murdering their neighbors and enslaving workers under their system of autocracy in the name of their socialist God.
So you want to usher in a socialist/communist society in the pursuit of freedom, egalitarianism, human progress, and the elimination of pointless suffering?
"Nah, I just want power to hurt people I don't like, and the USSR had cool aesthetics." -- tankies.
"Off lemmy"
How about trying off the Internet entirely.
You're in a bubble, most people in the US couldn't correctly define capitalism, let alone have such a strong agenda or opinion about it.
"off the internet"
How about trying off reality entirely.
You're in a bubble, most people in the astral plane couldn't correctly define the internet, let alone have such a strong agenda or opinion about it.
Off Lemmy I've already been assured by several dickhead accelerationists that this is actually bad, because it's against the rules to successfully progress a liberal democracy when the One Right Way to effect change is revolution only. They'd rather people suffer more if it meant an end to capitalism, revolting "ends justify the means" mentality.
Those people have such a lust for violence and don't care that the poor people they claim to be fighting for will be the ones who suffer most
"Why won't you die so I can avenge you‽"
But when I think about it, those poor people are absolutely fucked right now. By achieving small victories like these they get nothing. We have luxurious lifestyles, while the poorest don't even eat.
Fuck capitalism. House and feed everyone first, then play pretend with numbers.
Fuck capitalism, I agree. But I don't see where a county with any other economic system was ever chomping at the bit to sacrifice to feed the poorest in the world either.
Be angry, but realistic. Don't fetishize revolutions. Revolutions generally kill quite a lot of people, the vast majority of whom are not members of the ruling class
Ok, so can we agree to do those things without killing anyone who disagrees and then spending a few decades "protecting the revolution" with a "dictatorship of the whatever?"
Subjugating people is a terrible way to liberate them. Full stop. If you want socialism, then the only viable and sustainable path is convincing people to vote for socialism. Which is why tankie extremists are socialism's worst enemy.
Who said anything about force?
We can just spend resources to build sustainable habitats and farms for everyone.
Where is the subjugation?
Idk seems like referendums work so we don't need all that other stuff.
Yes… let the incrementalism flow through you.
They're certainly not bulletproof. It's obviously been a hot sec at this point, but Proposition 8 in California of all places codified marriage as exclusively being between a man and a woman when it was legalized by the California Supreme Court.
Continuing in California, Proposition 13, which froze property taxes so long as ownership is maintained but allows that frozen rate to be transferred to family, has essentially created a situation where the state is subsidizing homeowners that are already substantially wealthier than the average person while also legally enshrining a class of people who pay much less tax by virtue of inheritable status. The perverse economic effects are rather obvious.
Referendums can be great, but voters are also generally going to be inherently selfish. Local control of zoning and housing policy, just to shit on California one more time, has resulted in a massive housing crisis. There are situations where it's really important for lawmakers to choose the path that inconveniences everyone a little bit but solves a problem over the path where no individual is directly inconvenienced while the root problem only gets much worse. In Game Theory terms, referendums are very bad at handling prisoner's dilemma style situations, since voters will generally pursue their own immediate interests.
It's because these people don't actually care about socialism or equality. You can tell, because they don't ever talk about those things. It's all's fantasizing about murdering their neighbors and enslaving workers under their system of autocracy in the name of their socialist God.
So you want to usher in a socialist/communist society in the pursuit of freedom, egalitarianism, human progress, and the elimination of pointless suffering?
"Nah, I just want power to hurt people I don't like, and the USSR had cool aesthetics." -- tankies.
"Off lemmy"
How about trying off the Internet entirely.
You're in a bubble, most people in the US couldn't correctly define capitalism, let alone have such a strong agenda or opinion about it.
"off the internet"
How about trying off reality entirely.
You're in a bubble, most people in the astral plane couldn't correctly define the internet, let alone have such a strong agenda or opinion about it.