You're viewing part of a thread.
First of all, who are you to tell me what I believe? If I believe that living in a commune-style societal arrangement would be better than market or trade-style arrangement, who are you to tell me that I actually don't believe that? Perhaps I'm not a communist like yourself -- I'm guessing you want something that preserves some level of social stratification -- but to me that is equally unacceptable. If we believe that all people are equal, why are we always trying to establish these top-down decision making structures, in which one person has arbitrary power over another?
Second of all, there are actually numerous examples in the archaeological and anthropological records of communities that lived in just that for hundreds of years -- hierarchy-less societies that had little notion of private property. Two books on the subject are Debt: The First 5000 years by David Graeber and The Dawn of Everything, by Graeber and David Wengrow, both of which are backed by academic rigor. This isn't to say anarchist societies are impermeable to outside forces -- obviously those anarchistic societies no longer exist, so you could say that they "failed." But I'm sure you, yourself, would be a bit offended if I told you state communism has never been successful historically, when in fact one of the main reasons it hasn't is because the West has been at war with state communism as an ideology for the past century and a half. Still, these anthropological examples at the very least expand our understanding of what is politically possible, and you saying "it has never worked, so it will never work," is just as silly as you saying "capitalism won, and therefore it must be the correct form of societal and economic arrangement."
Third of all, and I repeat myself, who are you to say that I'm content with how things are, I'm not doing anything practical to address problems, and that I'm giving a vote for genocide? The only way to not vote for a genociding politician in the upcoming election is to not vote at all, which is doing less than I'm already doing, and likely only going to help the party even further right. Not to mention, you don't fucking know me, or know what levels of organization I have or haven't been a part of. And furthermore, why would I be propelled to further organize, when people like you are so unpleasant to discuss politics with? Why would I want to collaborate with you when you talk like this?
We're on the same side, but -- Jesus -- you're making me wish we weren't. Your entire demeanor in this thread is what prevents liberals from realizing what you, yourself, are trying to convince them -- that the American Democratic party are part of the problem.
For the sake of leftists, please do better.
edit: Oh and you're a mod of this page? For the love of god dude please improve your rhetorical skills. I understand your frustration, but American liberals are entrenched in a two party system that forces them to choose between two evils. Alienating them from the getgo is not a good strategy
First of all, who are you to tell me what I believe?
I'm telling you what you purport to believe in results in tangible terms.
If I believe that living in a commune-style societal arrangement would be better than market or trade-style arrangement, who are you to tell me that I actually don’t believe that?
If I believe in unicorns and fairies, who are you to tell me that I actually don’t believe that?
Second of all, there are actually numerous examples in the archaeological and anthropological records of communities that lived in just that for hundreds of years – hierarchy-less societies that had little notion of private property.
Yes, these things work on a small scale, as society grows and becomes more complex, it starts to require things likes specialization, delegation of works, and gasp, central planning. The same way complex organisms require things like nervous systems and brains. That's why every large scale society ends up being structured in a hierarchical fashion. The evolutionary pressures select for that sort of structure because it's more efficient.
Third of all, and I repeat myself, who are you to say that I’m content with how things are, I’m not doing anything practical to address problems, and that I’m giving a vote for genocide?
If you are not willing to take meaningful action to stand up to genocide, then you are in fact complicit. It's really that simple.
For the sake of leftists, please do better.
For the sake of people being genocided by your deplorable regime, do better.
Yes, these things work on a small scale, as society grows and becomes more complex, it starts to require things likes specialization, delegation of works, and gasp, central planning. The same way complex organisms require things like nervous systems and brains. That's why every large scale society ends up being structured in a hierarchical fashion. The evolutionary pressures select for that sort of structure because it's more efficient.
Actually, the archaeological record proves this to be false, as some of the cities they've found consisted of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. You're just perpetuating a pseudo scientific idea of social organization, in the same way that capitalists do.
But you don't seem to be really interested in actual conversation, just "you're complicit in genocide."
Which, again, there isn't much I can do besides go to protests and declare, "yes, it is a genocide. Yes, the US and the democratic party is complicit, and yes, if Republicans are elected they will attempt to legitimize Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and their overall utter destruction of the Palestinian people."
Actually, the archaeological record proves this to be false, as some of the cities they’ve found consisted of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. You’re just perpetuating a pseudo scientific idea of social organization, in the same way that capitalists do.
That's small scale compared to millions of people living in modern countries. It's literally an order of magnitude smaller scale.
But you don’t seem to be really interested in actual conversation, just “you’re complicit in genocide.”
Seems to me that you're the one who's not interested in actual conversation, and don't want to talk about what the tangible outcomes of your position entail. Instead, you just want to talk about fantasies of yours that are divorced from the material reality we inhabit.
Which, again, there isn’t much I can do besides go to protests and declare, “yes, it is a genocide. Yes, the US and the democratic party is complicit, and yes, if Republicans are elected they will attempt to legitimize Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and their overall utter destruction of the Palestinian people.”
The least you can do is not give your vote to people conducting a genocide. That much should be obvious.
Wow! You've convinced me! I'll never take part in a US election ever again! Where can I join your political party, so that they can tell me what to do from the top-down instead? Yay! I'm not a genocider anymore!
I never expected to convince you of anything. It's pretty clear that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with somebody who says they refuse to join a political party due to its top-down organization while voting for a party committing a genocide within a system of top-down organization without any hint of irony.
I'm really not sure what could be more rational than voting in the direction that leans away from what you don't want (further genocide, further authoritarianism) while still recognizing that direction does not lean far enough, and therefore continuing to organize outside the political system.
What you would have me do is not vote at all (an irrational, symbolic gesture, ceding increased power to hard right authoritarians) and continue to organize outside the political system.
I choose to do both, vote and organize, because that's really the maximum amount I can do here. You say a vote for Harris is supporting genocide. Well, a vote for Trump is also supporting genocide. And a vote for nobody means I have no preference at all. Well, I do have a preference -- I prefer the party that, at least publicly, supports a two state solution. The party which consists of at least a few individuals who actually calls the conflict what it is, which is a genocide. As opposed to the other, which has ZERO members even willing to call it a genocide.
At the same time, recognizing that the system is broken, that the Democratic party is complicit in the crimes of the US, and pushing from outside the political system, for radical change.
I would use the full extent of my power as an individual, while you would prefer me to use only a portion of it. Could you explain to me how that is more rational than using my full power? (and that's a genuine question, because if I know how your mind works maybe I'll agree)
Olympic level mental gymnastics on display