Need a politics-free safe space? It's called "going for a walk"
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
1001 points (86.6% liked)
Memes
45601 readers
1883 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the common Communist definition of "Rich" and Marx's might differ vastly, and I think the vagueness of the word is half the reason. I see too many Communists calling for the death to (for example) computer programmers because many of them are able to save up a couple million by retirement. I know a few that ended up with $10M cash because they worked for a profit-share startup. While I'm not an expert on Marx, I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant when he referred to the bourgeoisie.
Hell, I don't think he ever predicted the massive number of "petite bourgeoisie" that we have now in much of the west, people who put in 60-80 hours simply to live the same life the rest of us live but not have to obediently answer a boss. I'd do that if I could. You'd think Communists could make allies of both the successful proles (like programmers) and the petite bourgeoisie.
If you draw "rich" somewhere close to the $100M mark or higher and include some asterisks on the ones you think should be murdered in the streets (assuming that's what you meant by "unless we're talking about the rich"), maybe most people will agree you're not an aggressive communist (but still be terrified of you like we are of anyone who wants to kill someone for who they are). If you're going to look at a grandma who has $2M in savings after her husband dies, the world's got problems with you.
I mean, if you want to peacefully dismantle people like Musk, then I'm 100% on board with you. If you would support someone taking sudden and violent force to him, as much as I think he's a douche, that's why we use the word "aggressive".
And yet nobody minds the aggression of capitalism and the right on anybody other than well off cishet white men 🤔
Across the country LGBTQIA people are being actively censured, stripped of their right to exist, and outright physically assaulted. There's no concerted trend trend to bitch about THAT violence, but mention a guillotine and half the fediverse comes out to cry about how we're all just meanie tankies out to murder anybody who makes more than minimum wage.
Really? NOBODY minds that? I can't be pro-LGBTQIA without believing that any possible system except strict communism will work? You're talking black & white thinking, the same as the anti-LGBTQ extremists. There are miles of Left, even far left, that aren't Authoritarian Communism (that isn't authoritarianism but does involve Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the exertion of authority. I was fucking THERE, marching there, when they legalized gay marriage in my state, one of the first in my country. I had a good friend be in the first 50 gay marriages in my state. Does it not count if I'm not a Tankie? All my friends who were out there risking their safety against the Catholic alt-right violence in my state didn't count?
Look, you touched a nerve here, and I'm trying to take a breath. Maybe I misread you. Are you genuinely trying to say that you can't oppose far-right violence without being a Communist? Or (perhaps just as bad) are you trying to say that if I'm not ok with violence against queer and transgender individuals that I need to be ok with violence against all liberals?
And I'd like to quantify that I got hit this morning with a dozen replies putting me in the "liberal them" pile, basically agreeing that if I don't strongly support violence against the non-Communist supermajority, I'm a liberal and have no right to call myself a leftist. I hate the tearing down of the pacifist Left I keep seeing.
Interesting. I'm not a Tankie a tall. That's kinda the point.
Wow. How many people would you murder to preserve your precious gender identity?
I have no problem with an individual acquiring wealth on the fruit of their own individual labor. The computer programmer getting a buy out from a venture capitalist has successfully gamed the system without being personally responsible for harm to others. At least directly. Usually.
My problem is with people who exploit the labor of others for profit. No billionaire earns that last zero without causing harm. They perpetuate violence for profit, knowingly. That violence can take a lot of forms, from unsafe working conditions all the way down to actual fucking slavery.
The thing is, you can't participate in capitalism without either extreme ignorance or at least a little complacency towards that violence. And fine, there's little to nothing most of us can do about it. 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.
I don't see a peaceful remedy to this problem. 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. We can talk about organizing your workplace and demanding better conditions, but that system is actively rigged against us too, even if you're already in a union.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You frame it as killing someone for who they are (rich) while the aggressive communist frames it as what the rich have done (destroy countless lives for personal monetary gain)
Not saying that it's ok, I wouldn't condone murder in a public setting of course. Just saying :)
I'm not ok with the death penalty for serial killers and rapists, and I think the laws we have now (if they were enforced) cover for corruption.
I have a rule. No matter how shitty the rules, nobody should die for playing by them. Ex Post Facto protections are a hallmark of preventing justice from being another name for authoritarian persecution. Of all people, it tends to shock me that Communists struggle to see that when they are the first to back extreme versions of ACAB-attitudes.
I know rich people who are... just fucking rich and that's it. Lottery, good job. Smart little investment. Most rich people don't destroy lives directly for monetary gain. Is there an indirect effect between wealth distribution and suffering? SURE, but holding someone accountable by violence for something they indirectly effected when it was legal? I just can't see it no matter how they frame it.
It's like COVID opposition. When we didn't have laws against their bullshit (COVID spreader parties?) it is unjust to now go back and pass a law to punish there behavior merely because it caused hundreds of thousands of extra death.