NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST ENACT STRICT QUARANTINE AND PREVENT THE RAPID MASS SPREADING OF PLAGUE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
These public trials and executions were held to the overwhelming approval of the public, pretty much for the purpose of mollifying widespread popular fury toward former Batistiano thugs and terrorists who had made the masses suffer and killed their relatives for years. Historians believe they most likely prevented a bloodbath of mob justice that would have killed hundreds more indiscriminately, and the trials were the method by which the revolutionaries established their authority and re-established some semblance of rule of law.
If you were tried and executed because of these trials, it's because you were a close collaborator with the murderous Batista regime. "Police chief of Santa Clara", yeah, I fucking bet he was.
being woke living vicariously through a vacuous charisma-less black woman but also these two biblical figures doing miscegenation or w/e caused a plague on mankind
You know, just for kicks, I want to take a singular post out of that thread and utterly break it down to demonstrate just how out of touch these people are. They think they understand how Marxists think, but actually completely don't. They think this "understanding" gives them the capacity to rebut the arguments of the left, but actually completely don't. And they prevent themselves from coming to the realization that they don't, by essentially dismissing people who are Marxists as "too far gone and ideological" who should not be engaged with at all. Thus, they become trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle of ideology, where they themselves cannot evolve their own understanding of the system they support.
Post in full:
spoiler
Ask them to define capitalism. See what they say. Ask if they have a broad flexible neutral view of the word (a market economy based on private ownership that can have a lot a little or no social safety net) or a more negative one (a greed based economy!). Then try to get them to see how, academically, capitalism is a much broader term and there are many flavors of capitalism. Steer them to seeing capitalism as this broad term. Then ask them if they are ideologically opposed to capitalism or practically opposed to it. If they are ideological, don't waste your time with them. If they are practically opposed, as in they think capitalism ruins quality of life, just admit that different flavors of capitalism, or any economic system, have good and bad points and you have to choose the right combination of policies that best leads to your end goal. For me that end goal is: An economic system that improves the quality of life for the most number of people, but taking special consideration for the poorest and vulnerable. See if they agree if that is a good ongoing goal. If they do, then you've got a starting point.
At that point tell them you want to drop the term capitalism, socialism, liberal, conservative, progressive, etc. etc. Talk about individual policies and aspects of life. Most people will agree with things like private property and doctors making more than janitors, and some sort of social safety net. Find areas you disagree on: maybe trade, then explain comparative advantage and how starving children in a poor country benefit from trade ... it's not like impoverished people are forced at gunpoint to go work in factories for 50 cents/hour, they are doing it on purpose because it's better than what they had before, and if we made a global minimum wage, companies wouldn't build their factories in poor countries, they'd just move them to the middle income countries that had better infrastructure but didn't get the cheap labor before the wage increase. Boom, that's an aspect of capitalism .
Or you could point out that the broad definition of capitalism doesn't negate affordable universal healthcare, a social safety net, universal K-12 education and affordable college. If they dig in, and demand you use their definition of words, then say you aren't going to debate semantics, but you understand. Tell them that you hate greed too, etc. etc. and that you agree an economic system should improve quality of life, and it is more about picking the best policies. Here you can find other things you agree on. Maybe an estate tax to prevent consolidation of economic power, a progressive income tax, free trade, open borders, taco trucks on every corner.
They might have a knee-jerk reaction to try to say, "those are socialist" or "capitalism is just greeeeeed!" and again, don't try to tell them they are wrong, just say, "Academic definitions are usually different, are we debating semantics? Or policy?" Try to stick to policy and show how good capitalism works really good, and just admit that bad capitalism (like bad socialism, mercantilism, or communism) sucks.
In the end, you might be talking about definitions just as much as real policy. This is honestly an important part of framing the debate so don't worry. Don't make excuses for bad capitalism, just defend good policy and show how good policy happens to also be good capitalism.
Ask them to define capitalism. See what they say. Ask if they have a broad flexible neutral view of the word (a market economy based on private ownership that can have a lot a little or no social safety net) or a more negative one (a greed based economy!). Then try to get them to see how, academically, capitalism is a much broader term and there are many flavors of capitalism. Steer them to seeing capitalism as this broad term. Then ask them if they are ideologically opposed to capitalism or practically opposed to it. If they are ideological, don't waste your time with them. If they are practically opposed, as in they think capitalism ruins quality of life, just admit that different flavors of capitalism, or any economic system, have good and bad points and you have to choose the right combination of policies that best leads to your end goal. For me that end goal is: An economic system that improves the quality of life for the most number of people, but taking special consideration for the poorest and vulnerable. See if they agree if that is a good ongoing goal. If they do, then you've got a starting point.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and the use of capital to reproduce and accumulate more of itself. This is done through the appropriation of surplus value from the masses of workers, who are forced into a proletarian class status by complex and extremely violent historical processes known as "primitive accumulation"; through which great masses of people were driven off their lands, driven into the cities, and deprived of access to both means of subsistence and means of production. They are coerced by natural processes into seeking employment by a capitalist, and then produce more value than they are paid in wages. Capitalists then utilize appropriated surplus value to circulate their capital in a series of continuous cycles for the sole purpose of accumulating more capital. This system elevates the pursuit of profit to the sole overriding moral imperative at the expense of all other priorities (including human extinction and public health) and is predicated upon endless compound growth.
What this person has done is internalize a significant number of ideological memes, most notably that capitalism is trade, capitalism improves the quality of everyone's life and decreases poverty, and that capitalism now is merely perverted and can be managed with the right number of "sensible, evidence-based policies" and regulations. Note in particular how their personal definition of capitalism is not grounded in any sort of material analysis or terms, but is merely an extremely ideological phrase. Ironically, despite hanging out in a subreddit explicitly named after the ideology of neoliberalism, this person is not consciously ideological. They have embraced a false consciousness, as extreme as the most deluded ultraliberal/"right-libertarian" CHUD.
A lot of /r/neoliberal users are like this. They don't understand their own ideology, but think they do. This manifests as essentially in supporting neoliberal free trade, means testing, etc but also New Deal-type welfare state policies. They will often express contradictory support for the Keynesian interventionist liberal state and the neoliberal free-trade market fundamentalism, because essentially they've identified both as "good" but want to be "practical", but since they don't understand their own beliefs when put on the spot they will support contradictory positions at different times. This is also manifested elsewhere on the liberal spectrum with self-identified "progressives" who rhetorically support "progressive policy" like raising the minimum wage and Medicare-4-All, and are also woke af supporting "diversity", LGBT rights, and BLM, but then when the chips are down end up being just woke neoliberals.
then explain comparative advantage and how starving children in a poor country benefit from trade ... it's not like impoverished people are forced at gunpoint to go work in factories for 50 cents/hour, they are doing it on purpose because it's better than what they had before, and if we made a global minimum wage, companies wouldn't build their factories in poor countries, they'd just move them to the middle income countries that had better infrastructure but didn't get the cheap labor before the wage increase. Boom, that's an aspect of capitalism .
This person has accidentally discovered dialectical materialist analysis, but of course doesn't know it because they've mystified their definition of capitalism through neoliberal ideological obsession with free trade, conflating trade with capitalism.
One of the more bizarre "debates" that I've seen happen between online leftists and /r/neoliberal types is the sweatshop debate. That vast majority of rhetoric that went back and forth on this subject is between babby leftists who haven't read much theory and are still making moralistic arguments against capitalism, and falsely conscious neoliberal types like the poster in question. This is where the incredibly obnoxious troll meme of "Oh you hate sweatshops? Why do you hate the global poor?" comes from. They've convinced themselves that hyperexploitation of the poor in the Global South is actually eradicating poverty and good for workers.
The problem is approaching the question of sweatshops from a moralistic rather than a Marxist, dialectical materialist perspective. Sweatshops are indeed a necessary aspect of capitalist development. Rural peoples are violently displaced from the countryside and driven into the cities. They are forced to take exploitative jobs. It is the earliest stage of capitalist development - sweatshops are often involved with textiles, one of the most primitive capitalist industries.
1/CONTIINUED
Literally became a socialist because of Kaiserreich
Maybe thats embarrassing idc
And they basically didn't. They went the fuck back home because they're cowards who don't know what the fuck they're doing.
They are - and I cannot emphasize this enough - stupendously dull
Voldemort began to melt. Harry lit a cigarette, because he was the master of fire.
Hermione ached with desire for the both of them to master her, but nobody paid her any attention. They had empires to build.
this guy Ayn Rands
People forget that one of original lines of the Internationale were "Our bullets are for our own generals"
EDIT: You know what, no, that's not the post. Does anyone remember who the most effective activists against the Vietnam War. The Vietnam Veterans Against War. The conservatives literally had to concoct a mythology that anti-war activists fucking hated the troops to the point that they spit on returning veterans.
Bourgeois professional militaries literally have their own inherent class divide in officers vs enlisted.
The entire reason historical wars became so unpopular was because of drafts and conscription, which is inherently polarizing due to affecting different segments of society unequally based on class. Conscripted armies are literally a means of socialization and consciousness-forming for the working class in the exact same way concentrated industrial enterprises are. Conscript armies become pressure cookers for class-based social unrest and dissent. This is precisely the reason they abolished the draft after Vietnam and will never actually reinstitute it. Just like police, professional volunteer-only militaries inevitably become hotbeds of reaction and hubs for reactionary indoctrination, pitting the professional soldiers and professional cops against cowardly, soft "civilians".
The seventh book very obviously ran into the dilemma of "oh god oh fuck i have so many loose ends and my protagonists are in such deep shit there is no way i can tie this all together". AKA the Kojima/Lost dilemma. Deathly Hallows was an admirable effort but the cracks in foundation are extremely visible
Been a long time since I read but IIRC:
This shit was gripping when you were younger but if you step back and view the series with a wider critical eye it has a lot of gaping problems. Rowling basically introduced several incredibly important McGuffins crucial for resolving the entire series in the last book and retroactively tied them in with earlier events and foreshadowing. Voldemort's final defeat was certainly thematically appropriate (he was so arrogant and unable to comprehend he was mortal he refused to listen to an honest attempt to warn him he was wrong) but Harry basically wins on a technicality. A better series, if it really wanted to end this way, would have spent a lot of time in the series setting up these McGuffins and the ambiguity of the language regarding ownership of the McGuffin. But it's thrown in at the last minute like an Ass Pull.
spoiler
You: I know I can get history back on the right track.
René: The "right track"? This is the right track! The only track. (he gets visibly annoyed) This is the world we shaped, a reflection of what we are: cowardly, ugly, and numb. And there are no second chances. We don't deserve them! You just can't go back and restart — that would make everything MEANINGLESS! (a shadow of pain comes over his face)
Empathy: There's something substantial moving in him, trying to get out.
Volition: He would sooner die than let it surface.
You: What is it?
Empathy: Regret.
You: Regret about what?
Pain Threshold: (as the camera zooms in on Gaston) Him.
You: Him?
Pain Threshold: There's tenderness in the carabineer's look. Tenderness that's curdled into pain or something darker.
You: Ex-love, ex-tenderness...
Pain Threshold: Even worse, a love aborted and smothered, stamped beneath his brilliant boot heel.
René: (you catch the old carabineer's gaze slowly leaving his opponent's wrinkled face as his dark eyes meet yours — whatever turmoil raged in him a moment ago is quelled for now)
Conceptualization: Like the last rays of the evening sun gently kissing the day goodbye, before giving way to unfathomable darkness.
Volition: Willed back into the darkest unexplored depths of his mind — never meant to be shared, seen or confronted.
Composure: A true master of his emotions.
Inland Empire: Hopelessly alone behind the unbreakable walls he spent a lifetime erecting. No one will ever know him.