Objection

joined 2 years ago
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Well, that would certainly be an interesting new direction to try after 250 years of the opposite.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago

Definitely don’t believe these people have done much to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt, even remotely.

I would say it’s harder to believe a sex trafficking pedophile island run by a bunch of billionaires to serve the world’s elite, ever existed in the first place

I don't find that hard to believe at all, that seems very consistent with the sort of things billionaires do.

If a scientist famously attempted to do it, not sure why you would think these people wouldn’t?

This is what you're not getting. It's not a question of whether they would or wouldn't do it based on morals. Absolutely no question that they would. The thing is they could've literally just dumped bodies into mass graves, what, are cops going to be snooping around? Or thrown them into the sea, whatever they feel like. It's purely a question of practicality.

There's simpler and more mundane explanations anyway, like desalinization. Again it's not a question of "giving them the benefit of the doubt."

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Sulphuric acid is not particularly good at dissolving bodies. It's hard to believe that a bunch of billionaires on a private island with bodies to dispose of would chose that as a method.

Agree that Epstein was clearly murdered.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

Did this guy just call the KPD liberals?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's not really true at all. Republican voters are the ones who wanted - and demanded - to have Trump as the nominee. Many establishment figures in the RNC did not want him. However, if they had taken steps to deny him the nomination, there's a very real chance that he would have run third party and split the vote, which he threatened to do several times. Hell, his supporters showed up to the 2016 convention armed and in numbers, in part in case the establishment tried something last minute.

On the Democrats' side, the DNC have basically hand-picked establishment candidates for the past three elections, and they do it because they expect people to bend the knee and fall in line behind the lesser evil. Bernie was never going to run third party, and his supporters were never going to show up with guns at the convention. He actively campaigned for Hilary and they still blamed him, even though the number of Bernie-Trump voters was much smaller than the number of Clinton-McCain ones, and Clinton sure as hell didn't stump for Barack.

If Republicans are more loyal to the Republican party, it's because the party responded to what they wanted. And the reason that they did so is because the "my way or the highway" mentality is so much more prevalent on the right. Liberals cannot ever shut up about the "lesser evil" and making the "rational" choice, while Conservatives don't give a fuck about that shit. Conservatives don't masturbate over how they're so rational that they'll humbly accept things they find morally abhorrent in order to prevent a greater evil the way liberals do, they say, "You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands," and their politicians listen to those red lines, at least to a degree.

Meanwhile, establishment Democrats have an actively hostile relationship with the left, and liberals still demand that we support them unconditionally.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Look you can argue this point as much as you like but you're wrong. I'm citing actual theory and you're going off what "feels right" to you. What you personally believe is "feasible" or "not feasible" is completely irrelevant.

If you won't believe one of the authors of the Communist Manifesto, then maybe you'll believe Wikipedia, which says in the first line:

In Marxist thought, a communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless,[3][4][5][6] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[7][8]


As I've explained to you several times, this is the end goal, an ideal to work towards, and not a policy to be implemented right away. Let me try to explain this to you.

Right now, you need money for everything. You need it for rent, you need it for food, you need it for transportation, for entertainment, for luxuries, etc. This makes people very dependent on the capitalist system, on wage labor, it makes it so that you have no choice but to sell your labor to survive. People will put up with a lot to keep their jobs because they're afraid they'll end up on the street otherwise. Some people will even put up with things like sexual harassment at work, or they'll stay in an unhealthy relationship so they have a place to stay, or sell drugs, whatever. Ain't no rest for the wicked.

Now, imagine that the state implements a free housing program. Now that you're no longer dependent on money to avoid being homeless, you are no longer as desperate for it. Of course, there's still plenty of stuff you can buy with it, but you have a safety net, and with that safety net, the balance of power at your job has shifted - if you get on your bosses bad side, you'll be faced with a meager living situation but not a desperate one. Because money is no longer used to buy housing, it has become a little bit less critical to your life.

Now, imagine that, one by one, over time, more and more things are moved out of the financial sphere and distributed based on need or fairness. With each step, money becomes a little more "superfluous." You don't need it for food or rent, you don't need it to get to work, you don't need it to pay for internet, etc. It becomes something that's used only for luxuries, collectables, imported goods, that sort of thing. Nobody goes around seizing everybody's money, it just becomes more and more limited in its applications.

Eventually, is it really so impossible to imagine a world where money is so limited that it doesn't really matter anymore? Where it has become "superfluous" and is eventually eliminated altogether? Obviously, such a transformation could not happen overnight. But we can certainly take steps to move in that direction, like the housing program I suggested. And taking steps in the direction of that vision is what Marx and Engles advocated for. Objectively. Indisputably. Even if you personally can't imagine it, others have.


If you're going to keep insisting that I'm wrong, then I have to ask where your ideas about what communism is come from, because they certainly don't come from reading theory. And I don't mind explaining things to people, but I do mind when people try to assert that I'm wrong about something without knowing basic facts about what we're talking about.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

How can you assume this is what they ment?

What do you mean? How can I assume that when Engles wrote "money will become superfluous" he meant "money will become superfluous?" Or how can I assume that he's talking about a distant ideal rather than an immediate course of action? For the latter, it's literally in the same piece of theory that I linked:

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

That's the short term, immediate measure he's advocating for, in contrast to the long term idea of "money will become superfluous."

You are talking about something else entirely n Communism does not advocate for the loss of personal finances.

I never said anything like that.

Communism isn’t what the u.s government and school systems has told you it is.

Lol? I'm literally citing theory. Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm relying on "what the US government and school systems told me it is?" Of course it isn't that. I'm going off of actual communist theory.

It’s not giving up all your wealth and work to “the state” so it can be evenly distributed.

I never said anything like that.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

I don’t think Marx advocated for no money to exist or be exchanged.

It sounds like your interpretation of communism is a hippie commune or co-ops. Not really the same thing.

Again, Engles:

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it's important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.

And because of Citizens United, and Israel, “elected officials by the people” might be a subjective interpretation of our current politicians.

And this is precisely why some form of authority has to exist in order to stop the bourgeoisie and reactionaries from influencing the political system. Even if you got rid of Citizens United and made bribery illegal again, the rich would still exert influence on politics through the press and through their control of the means of production. Citizens United is a symptom of that problem, not the cause. There's a broader reason why Citizens United became a thing in the first place.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

Authoritarian communism, is , from my perspective, not genuine communism.

Isn’t a core principle of communism (as the term itself implies) a communal society.

"Communism" is a moneyless, classless, stateless society. But while communists see this as an end goal, many don't believe it's possible to go directly to that. Colloquially, the term "communism" is sometimes used to describe a society in which communists hold power, even if it has not reached that ideal, i.e. "Communist China," although the more acurate term for that is "Actually Existing Socialism" or AES.

Frederick Engles argues for the necessity of authority in "On Authority:"

All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

If we're at the point of saying that Marx and Engles weren't "genuine" communists, maybe it would be better to just chose another word for what you're describing, because most self-described communists around the world are Marxist-Leninists, or "tankies."

No single leader would be needed. And would always cause a failure of the system.

A rotation of elected counselors would be optimal.

Both the US and China (as examples) already have "a rotation of elected counselors," do they not? Both have a congress of elected representatives which represent the highest legal authority. Or do the president/general secretary count as "a single leader?"

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

All the bourgeoisie see us as cattle, not all Jews do.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

If you're a socialist then you should understand that it's more about class rather than race.

 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/41758664

Obviously it's really about oil but this is a shitpost.

FFIV's great opening

 

Obviously it's really about oil but this is a shitpost.

FFIV's great opening

139
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/slop@hexbear.net
 
 

I'm aware that in many cases the answer is simply, "they don't," as many people don't seem to have the historical or theoretical curiosity to investigate it. However, I genuinely want to encourage more cerebral discussion around here, so I'll give a brief rundown.

The Second International was a big federation of socialists/social democrats with lots of different perspectives, the largest being Germany's SDP (which still exists today). The aim was to foster international cooperation and solidarity, and to promote the interests of the common people, including preventing the outbreak of a major European war. The Basel Manifesto, passed by a unanimous vote at the International Socialist Congress in 1912, stated:

If a war threatens to break out, it is the duty of the working classes and their parliamentary representatives in the countries involved supported by the coordinating activity of the International Socialist Bureau to exert every effort in order to prevent the outbreak of war by the means they consider most effective, which naturally vary according to the sharpening of the class struggle and the sharpening of the general political situation.

In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.

The Second International fell apart when the SDP voted in favor of issuing war credits, indicating support for German entry into WWI, with other social democratic parties following suit. This made any hope of international cooperation impossible. Although everyone said that they opposed the war in principle, they all found reasons to rally around their respective flags and point fingers at each other for who's side was more responsible.

Lenin was an exception to this trend and not only strongly opposed Russian participation in the war, but even went so far as to explictly call for Russia's defeat. The Leninist perspective is that the social democratic parties betrayed the international socialist movement and failed to oppose the war because had become filled with opportunists, people who were willing to go against the interests of the people out of fear of political persecution (or, in the interest of advancing their own careers) and that, from this, we can see that attempts to work within the system to achieve reform are vulnerable such mechanisms of subversion.

The breakdown of the Second International was not just a disagreement between social democrats and Leninists, but also between social democrats of different countries. When their respective countries turned against each other, and the range of acceptable opinions narrowed to the point that opposing the war would be seen as treasonous, they all found reasons to start fighting each other, in a largely pointless war on an unprecedented scale.

Is it really possible to build any sort of international coalition if a party limits itself to the range of opinions that are permissible within a capitalist system? And are modern social democrats even interested in that sort of internationalism anymore?

 

The government targeted disabled people from some of the poorest communities in the country, who McNamara referred to as, "the subterranean poor."

Many of those drafted were illiterate, they had to be taught to tie their shoes, and they didn't know things like who the president was, even as they were being sent to kill and die on his orders for an imperialist war, for reasons they could not understand.

A book called McNamera's Folly records some stories of those recruited in the program. One thought a nickel was worth more than a dime, because it was bigger. One of them failed to attend training and was sentenced to four years of labor in prison, and the sergeant asked if anyone "wanted to join them in the stockade." Another conscript didn't know what the word "stockade" meant and thought it meant going home, so he said yes - he received the same sentence.

If you can believe it, this was actually sold to the public as a "progressive" program, as part of Johnson's "War on Poverty." The claim was that this would be a way to help the conscripts learn useful skills. in reality, a study by the DoD itself found:

Comparisons between Project 100,000 participants and their non-veteran peers showed that, in terms of employment status, educational achievement, and income, non-veterans appeared better off. Veterans were more likely to be unemployed and to have a significantly lower level of education. Income differences ranged from $5,000 [to] $7,000 in favor of non-veterans. Veterans were more likely to have been divorced.

Obviously.

 

We all know the meme, but most of the time it's referenced about someone shitty saying something you already agree with. What I wanna hear about is a time when someone who you broadly disagree with actually gave you some kind of new insight about something - even if you didn't end up coming around to their point of view. Maybe they gave you a piece of a puzzle that you were missing, but then you built on that in a completely different way.

Doesn't have to actually be "the worst person you know," interpret it however you like.

 

This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.

The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.

But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:

"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."

Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?

"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"

"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."

Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.

It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔

Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.

 

This is an interesting little historical artifact I came across the other other day. The "Why We Fight" series was directed by Frank Capra (of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington") working for the War Department (as it was called at the time) as an attempt to counter the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will," and to explain to soldiers what they were fighting for, as well as familiarizing them with the basic conditions that allied countries had experienced.

The film has a couple of inaccuracies, and Chinese communists are completely absent from it, focusing entirely on the KMT. And of course, it's full of slurs for the Japanese (I think I actually learned a new one from it). The claim that China "has never once waged an aggressive war in it's 4000 years of history" seems, uhh, somewhat dubious, let's say. It cites the "Tanaka Memorial," a document which historians dispute the existence of. Otherwise, the film is fairly accurate and pretty interesting, if nothing else, because of how much it contrasts with narratives people have put forward in recent times where China was always some uniquely evil villain throughout it's whole history.

But there are a couple points that I found particularly relevant to certain modern discussions, such as:

"This vast area consists of China Proper and four outer provinces."

Tibet, a province of China? In 1944, before the PRC even existed? Huh. Wasn't 1944 during the period of time that people say it was an independent country?

"But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it's population, think of conquering China, much less the world?"

"Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation."

Why, that's certainly an interesting point, isn't it? Back when China was divided, with all these different warlords doing their own thing, it was certainly quite a bit more vulnerable to foreign aggression, compared to when it became more unified.

It kinda makes me wonder if the Japanese -or any foreigners, really - ever thought of intentionally trying to drum up internal strife within China, say, in Chinese provinces like Tibet or Xinjiang, for the purposes of weakening and exploiting the Chinese people as a whole 🤔

Anyway, to whatever time-traveling tankie went back and infiltrated the US government to add these things to the film, I just wanted to say, I see you.

 
view more: next ›