bleepingblorp

joined 3 years ago
[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Your labor is appreciated, fellow proletariats!

Also, how tf have 6 (as of this comment) people downvoted this??

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago

Worker's Cooperatives are about as good as you can get in capitalist conditions. You get a democratic say in co-op governance, have equity, etc, but it has limits. Here are a few:

You are still in a Capitalist system, and thus your co-op must compete with other companies. This means your co-op puts a division between you and other working class members not in your co-op.

Because your co-op is forced to operate in a Capitalist context to stay competitive, you are often forced to vote against your own interests as a working class. For example, if another company is reducing labor costs to eat your co-op's market share and reduce co-op revenues, this may force co-op members to vote to lower their own labor costs (ie reduce benefits, incomes, or even layoof fellow members) to keep up.

Because their are still divisions between the co-op workers and the working class at large, sometimes co-ops can acquire reactionary stances. Looking at you, REI...

Those are just a few examples, and Comrade Hakim has a great video somewhere on Youtube where he goes deeper and explains better. If I weren't using my phone right now I'd look for it for you. My best role in a revolution is not teacher though, so pardon my incomplete answer and halfassed handoff.

Either way though, it is still the best you can get in Capitalism. You get some democracy, which means workers can at least look out and protect themselves better within the cooperative. It also cam help teach people that democracy isn't just about pushing a few voting buttons every few years then forgetting about it, that democracy can apply to all facets of life. Also, the fruits of your labor will belong to you in a cooperative for the most part (of course there is still likely to exist some issues up and down the supply chain, but that is more typing than I want to do on a tiny cell phone screen).

So ultimately, if you have the chance to make or participate in a workers cooperative, I'd say go for it, then work to resolve or alleviate some of the problems mentioned.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 years ago

I know and am also not what people would call normal. I have panic attacks on the regular in crowds and can't even grocery shop during certain hours of certain days because of it. Also been involuntarily hospitalized a few times as well. Since I'm also a USian this stuff costs me between $10k - $20k USD per year, the variation depending on how good my insurance is amd how bad a given year is for me.

I'm not the flavor of neuro diverse Greta is, but I try to be aware of these things.

Greta, I've noticed, exudes a lot of confidence and poise when she is in her element, which is the environmental activist sphere. As I suspect she should be since she is actually very well educated in. When she speaks or poses for pictures or whatever while doing things related to these matters, she is clearly confident.

But she isn't all that knowledgeable about imperialism. Or geopolitics. Or socio-economics. Or the NATO/Russia/Ukraine relationship.

So here she is, likely having already spent several hours already with these people, who would've been talking to her about shit she knows next to nothing about, appearing uncomfortable in the photo shoot. Because she is out of her element and knows it.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I wasn't criticizing her appearance.

I was saying she seems to know what she is doing isn't right. But fair, could be an inaccurate assumption on my part, and she may indeed think what she is doing is somehow okay.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Even she knows she is out of her element here. Body language suggests she isn't comfortable.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago

We have exterminated parasites before, why can’t we do it again?

The fact that we've done something in the past doesn't mean it is justified. Going to advocate for killing more wolves, tigers, lions, etc because we've killed them in the past for being "pests" too?

I don’t see many people going up to bat for the Guinea Worm.

We also don't know what other roles they played in the natural ecosystem, and what problems removing them has caused. If it caused no harm, yay lucky us! But we do know dozens of birds, bats, etc rely on mosquito populations for food. If we keep taking organisms out of the picture because they are somehow inconvenient, eventually all we'll have left are pets and livestock.

Also all of that is wonderful and all, but natural land features such as wetland, swamps, floodplains, and river deltas prevent that from working... What are you going to do? Drain a wetland or pour kerosene into it and cause devastating damage to the local ecosystem and human population?

By building sewage, sanitation, and drainage systems in populated areas, you prevent standing water from being a major concern. Less standing water means less breeding grounds. Also, since this infrastructure also includes water purification plants, sewage treatment, trash/garbage management, etc., you also prevent the mosquitoes that do manage to breed from getting the diseases they like to spread in the first place.

This is why even though mosquitoes are everywhere, including the ""developed"" areas, the regions with good infrastructure have less mosquito born diseases going around.

So stop trying to insinuate that I am advocating for ecological destruction. I'm talking about funding and building sewers, hospitals, clinics, waste management, etc in cities, towns, villages, and other places where people live. Natural places need to stay untouched.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Humans have an awful record of shortsightedness and unforeseen consequences. While yes, mosquitoes have the highest humam kill rate of any other thing that can kill people, it can be mitigated or eliminated with adequate sanitation and healthcare access for communities being harassed by mosquitoes.

The better solution to the ails caused by these insects is to improve drainage and sanitation infrastructure, build hospitals and clinics, and enact policy which gives access to this infrastructure to everyone without exception.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

You are not personally guilty for the sins of your parents. In fact, that you recognize your privileged status and wish to fix the contradiction is commendable.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 years ago

Weather flippy floppin' everywhere all the time for me

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 years ago

They sure were doing it before. Probably just advertising it more now to prep for something.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago

They were doing it back when I was in, which was several years ago.

[–] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

I was actually being literal because we actually have a Minecraft server. I'm aware they know.

6
Why two, you ask? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml
 

FOR THE PEOPLE, COMRADES!

 

First, sorry if this isn't the best community for this kind of thing, but I hope you will engage with me regardless. Now...

Warning: This post will be US-centric as far as specific information pieces like tax rates, but I am under the impression the underlying principle can apply to any nation in the West and those aligned alongside it (looking at you, Japan, South Korea, and NATO).

So, to survive in the Imperial core, you essentially have to hold a job if you aren't a capitalist or landlord. You earn a wage, and use that wage to not starve and maybe have a roof overhead.

A portion of that income is taxed. In the US, the typical working class person gives roughly ~30% of their income to the nation-state as taxes. Here is where the crux lies:

Yes, some of that money does go toward worthy things like maintaining roads, funding medical care for some people, some social programs, etc., but...

Of the fiscal year 2023 federal budget, about ~37% goes toward military past (think interest on loans taken out in order to kill people) and current costs. This does not include all Department of Homeland Security and all State Department, though those are "partially" included in military.

So an average US based full time worker works about ~8 paid hours a day, plus or minus some depending on specifics, but ~8 is considered the standard.

About a third of that time is taken by the government in the form of taxes. And about a third of that time is used to fund military shit.

A third of 8 hours is about 2.6 repeating. A third of that is 0.8 repeating. So a little under an hour (roughly 53 minutes) each day is spent helping the military. A week that is about 4.4 repeating hours. Do the math and that time helping the military murder people adds up.

This makes every US worker an accomplice to murder, whether they like it or not. It doesn't matter if you are a factory worker, barista, or paid anti-war activist for an NGO, everyone in the US paying income tax is helping kill poor people.

Now that I've established that, I have another point to make from a moral perspective: if you have the power to help people (or stop hurting people), it is your moral duty to do so.

If you are walking down the street and you see a child (or any person really, it isn't the fact that it is a child making it imperative you save them) in a pond drowning, and you can swim, then you absolutely must stop, get in there, and save that child. It doesn't matter if you'll get your suit all muddy and wet and you have to present at some meeting soon, or whatever. You must go in there and save them.

And then obviously, if you don't have the capacity to help people (or stop hurting them), then you can't be expected to carry out that moral imperative.

So for the drowning child example, if you can't swim, you can't be expected to go out and save the kid. Or if you can't reach the pond for whatever reason, like a physical barrier is blocking you, then you can't be expected to save the child.

Now, this imperative extends to everything in life. For example, you have to buy a shirt because your other shirts are for whatever reason unusable as a shirt anymore. You are presented with two choices: a shirt made using slave labor and a shirt made voluntarily. It is you moral imperative to get the shirt using voluntary labor. It doesn't matter if it is not as pretty. It doesn't matter if you like the brand less. Those are of moral in-consequence. Using slave labor is bad.

Now, back to my original question: As long as material conditions are such that a revolution is impossible, if you have the capacity to leave the Imperial Core and stop paying taxes, you must do so. Staying would mean you are helping murder people. It does not matter that moving, especially abroad, is inconvenient. It does not matter that it might mean you need to learn about and get used to a new culture. It doesn't even seem to matter (correct me if I'm wrong) that your extended family will be sad, if they aren't dependent on you for their life or welfare (thus creating a moral barrier preventing you from being about to go), then it is your duty to stop aiding and abetting murder. It doesn't even matter if emigrating might mean a noticeable drop in your standard of living, as long as you can meet all your human needs and expect to live a similar life expectancy then it is your duty to go.

Now, obviously I am assuming that such a person who takes these things into consideration should also behave respectfully when they arrive at their destination. They will treat locals with love, kindness, and respect. They will strive to do work that is fulfilling and aids society while meeting their needs. They will speak the local language to the best of their ability and be respectful of local traditions and customs. In a Marxist context, this person would also continue to build resiliency and community in their new home, aiding the working class by way of praxis.

I am also going under the assessment that a communist revolution will not happen in the relevant Imperial Core countries in a reasonable time to morally justify staying and continuing to pay into this war tax system in the meantime.

Also, obviously this moral imperative doesn't apply to people who can't leave. If you can't afford to move, you can't afford to move. If you can't get permission from a qualifying non-imperialist nation state to legally enter, then you can't go.

Comrades, am I missing something? Where is my argument flawed if it is flawed? Is there a justification to continue to pay into the war system when you have the option to stop?

Please note: These thoughts are influenced by Peter Singer's 1972 paper titled "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" and then applied to my current understanding of material conditions in the US (and extended to some degree to the rest of the Imperial core based on what I hear from comrades, friends abroad, and media intake [both reliable and less reliable]). I am not aware of any Marxist literature which might cover these sorts of dilemmas, so if you have suggestions, I'm all ~~ears~~ eyes. Lastly, if you downvote, please say why so I (and maybe other comrades too) can learn and grow from it.

 

So I am a bit aware of the John Brown Gun Club and Socialist Rifle Association, but I am looking for more information.

Do any comrades here know of or are part of any gun groups for Marxists? Any information could be helpful, including about the two I mentioned. I've heard mixed reviews on both and would like it kind of straightened out. Also additional options or what have you would be nice.

I am US based.

view more: next ›