Need a politics-free safe space? It’s called “going for a walk”

  • abraxas@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My problem is with people who exploit the labor of others for profit. No billionaire earns that last zero without causing harm

    I’m mostly on board with you. But I’d like to cite “Notch” (of Minecraft) as an example of someone who earns the last zero without causing harm. Pure fucking luck? Sure. Should be part of a society that will redistribute his wealth? Definitely. Perpetuating violence for profit? I dunno what he’s doing now, but he wasn’t when he got that billion.

    The thing is, you can’t participate in capitalism without either extreme ignorance or at least a little complacency towards that violence.

    As a demsoc, my whole position is described by stopping the violence from within. There are parts of capitalism that are palatable, though it will inevitably end up in a horrible state if left to stagnate. But if I had to choose between universal healthcare and welfare for all and a violent revolution that fewer than 10% of people actually want, I think the former is a better option. And despite me having a lot of the same goals as the groups seeking that revolution, they still terrify me.

    You exist in this system, you’re a part of it. You’re either ok with others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate in your breakfast croissant, or you aren’t.

    Please understand that this terrifies me. The black & white no-middle-ground thinking is the foundation of so many atrocities. That idea that you cannot improve capitalism, or that a “better capitalism” is still identical to “others doing violence on your behalf so you can have a bit of chocolate” is the kind of madness that leads to authoritarian regimes. I’m against capitalism in general. I’m also against a smallish number of people with guns replacing capitalism with something else.

    I don’t see a peaceful remedy to this problem.

    Can you acknowledge that a state that over 90% of humans would be happy with is still within “the problem” for you? If not, please understand that THIS is why most people incorrectly batch Communism with Fascism. If so, please understand why you having a problem is the problem and you need to learn to differentiate between the Bidens and the Trumps. Biden is “the other side”. Trump is satan.

    We can talk about theory, about “yeah just organize and vote” until we’re blue in the face but the reality is that system is actively rigged against us.

    Let me be clear about this. I’m part of the same category batched as “progressives and leftists”. WE represent about 9% of the population in my home country. That part is unfortunately Democracy working as designed. Not rigged. WE should represent a larger percent of the population, but unlike Billionaires and Church Leaders, we can’t seem to find common ground between Far Left V1 and Far Left V2.

    But you’re right. With less than 6% of people in your country supporting your particular views, voting is not the answer. But, IMO, neither is violence. If 6% of the country manages a coup, I will not be happy no matter how much of their views I agree with. Because that’s an authoritarian regime.

    We are actively rocketing towards a very bleak future and every passing day without cataclysmic change only pushes it down the line. And every day we push it back, it increases in magnitude.

    Everything you say here I agree with. But if we can’t get the support for “very bleak future” under 90%, then you’ve failed even if you temporarily succeed.

    So frankly, if someone is going to commit violence on my behalf, I’d rather it be directed at the problem than directed at my peers in the working class, wherever they may be.

    My wife’s best friend is Petite Bourgeoisie, she owns a breakfast diner near the local project. She makes less than her workers in all but the most perfect months. I have no problem with her. I have problem with anyone who will make her choose between surrendering her freedom not to answer to an ownership structure (even a communal ownership structure), or “going up against the wall”. Ironically, it is the part of me most sympathetic to the goals of communism that support her attempted independence from private ownership. I have, on many occasions, been told she would be in line for death or disenfranchisement. Do you understand my reservations? I PREFER an imperfect capitalism if that is the only alternative. And you might not have meant it, but you came across as saying that’s the only alternative, and by way of violence.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whether or not notch directly hurt anyone himself. (He is now) The money he was paid was blood Money derived from persecuting destroying and monopolizing the market on Microsoft’s part.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So are you or are you not advocating for the murder of Notch? If so, I will oppose you at all costs as I would any extremist. If not, then what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. Definitely not as long as he will help to work to make a more just and amicable Society. However if he or others try to violently oppress or push everyone down. All bets are off. One of the things these wealthy people need to remember is that we far outnumber them. And their money only isolates and protects them as long as we are marginally content. Should we ever get focused enough to the point to come for them. They stand no chance. So it’s in their interest to work with us. I don’t care if they have a slightly better life than average. So long as people aren’t homeless and Starving in the streets.

          • abraxas@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have never had a problem with self-defense. My problem is how often some folks talk proactive violence against a fairly vague definition of “bourgeoisie”, or merely “the rich”. And (I’m sure you can understand why I’d have a problem) that some folks talk like I’m in the receiving-end category of proactive violence.

            I know it’s not popular here, but I hold Communists to the ACAB-rule. For me to consider respecting a member of ANY group where a substantial percent is advocating for violence against myself or those I care about, or proactive violence at all, I need to know that person strongly and openly opposes that behavior and is part of trying to fix it. If you do that, I’ll happily have a beer with you.

            I don’t think Communists and Tankies are the same thing, but a lot of Tankies are pulling “no true scotsman” even here about advocating for violence against (for example) liberals.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you just happen to be luckily a member of an ingroup. Chances are you will have minimal issue. But that doesn’t mean people don’t. Your personal experience is yours and yours alone. And not shared by everyone.

              There is no nebulous definition of bourgeoisie. If you labor, you’re proletariat. Even if you’re sympathies mistakenly lay with the bourgeoisie. If you live off wealth, and use it to amass more wealth. Bourgeoisie. Owners of many, or large company’s and middle management. Bourgeoisie. Landlords/slumlords bourgeoisie. Career politicians? Bourgeoisie. Stock traders etc? Bourgeoisie.

              There is more than one type of communist. So your generalization is well, …highly ignorant. However, when it comes to leninists. I strongly agree. Those are the ones you’re referring to. Anarcho-communists have a hard enough time organizing together let alone finding the desire to go after bourgeoisie. They want to be mostly left alone. Authoritarians of any stripe are the problem. Not communists.