Comments by "john" (@Pistolita221) on "More Perfect Union"
channel.
-
@brandon9172 Because the owner class will use their private security contracts (Pinkertons intelligence, Acadami military engagements, AUSS for holding territory if the PD isn't on board, and others), gang connections, arms companies, etc. to wage war to maintain power. They threatened FDR during the depression and made him weaken the New Deal policies, I don't think their intelligence network is in worse shape today with Google, Apple and Amazon. They co-opted the German socialist revolution after WWI and turned it into fascism. They co-opted the Socialists in Russia and consolidated power to form the Soviet Union. There is a long history of military interventions working out in favor of the bourgeoise. Also, armies NEED a strict hierarchy to ensure they keep secrets and to avoid friendly fire. It also makes change of battle plans much faster to enact than a democratized system, so strict hierarchies win wars. But strict hierarchies do not lend themselves to socialism. Why would the general who won the war step down? Would this new army even remain unified when the person in charge is swapped out, before there is precedence and an established order? We got SO lucky with George Washington for all his shortcomings, that he was willing to step down. Will we roll another nat 20 after the next catastrophic revolutionary war? IDK about that (it's possible, though). I'm not sure it's worth risking war with the most powerful armies in the world to find out, either. As much as I do understand that radical change is DESPERATELY needed RIGHT NOW both for humanitarian/economic issues, social issues, political structure, and climate change. But I just can't see a forceful overthrowing of the government having good enough odds for a positive outcome to actually be worth the INSANE level of risk in challenging "the powers that be".
It is unfortunate that (as I understand things) the process needs to be long and drawn out, I REALLY had my heart set on "glorious revolution" for a half a decade after high school, but I realized how unrealistic and ineffective that has the potential to be. Plus the constitution is pretty cool, a lot of the people who wrote it are bad people (especially by todays standards) but JUST THE WRITING TAKEN AS IT IS WRITTEN is actually remarkably based. Would the next constitution be that much better? Who's writing it? What are some concepts we want to work into it? Forcefully replacing the system is not the right way to get the best odds of enacting the most positive change, in my opinion. So i tried to come up with another plan to achieve the exact same ends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichelleHell Capitalism is fitness and communism is truth? lmao, I'm sorry that's just comically reductive. Which communism and which capitalism, and then how are they fitness and truth respectively?
"The more exploited you've been, the more traumatized you become, the more you want to live a life free of money"
Why are you making such broad sweeping generalizations? That's just not true. Some people join gangs or start cut-throat businesses and get paid, but they're bad people. Some people figure out/get lucky and make it out, and don't critically look back. You're describing YOUR journey and it's valid, but let's not make sweeping generalizations as an argument.
What scares me about tribal societies being replicated in todays world? Well, tribes can have their own unique language. We live in a globalized world. Tribes don't have formal courts, they don't have formal contracts, or formal ways to enforce contracts. They exist without currency, often. Do you like your phone? They don't want bread, they want money for that phone. Tribes often follow religion and tradition more than science, which I think we can all agree is problematic. I generally don't want to die of exposure, which is more common in those communities. Sure, the cooperation is something we desperately need but let's not pretend tribal governance would maintain the incredibly complex logistics supply chain that allows us to live such relatively comfortable lives.
I'm saying wahabist terrorist groups aren't representative of islam. Or that what priests do to kids to make the news is not in accordance with Christianity. Like, yeah they wear the flag and we can't remove it but we can also acknowledge the letter of the word and how their actions don't align. I think that's typically the best argument to make to get someone to change their behavior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichelleHell Democratic government intervention has the potential to curb corruption. Communism&socialism are just as susceptible. They are fine systems, a major improvement on what we currently have IF implemented correctly, which requires democracy. There can be worker democracies within capitalism, it is arguable that some degree of control creates a freer market than an unregulated one.
Depression and suicide are not INHERENT in capitalism. You're not understanding my point. It's ALL nuance. I'm not all in on capitalism or communism, they both have good traits I'd like to borrow from but neither system is a "fire and forget" deal, maintaining a healthy government is a FULL TIME JOB for ALL citizens. Whatever system we have, we need to be conscious of it. Like the mega-corps that run the world from behind the scenes like DTCC, BNY Mellon, ASML, Investor AB or Hearst Media? You need to know the systems and how they work before you try to change them. Otherwise you're grasping at smoke.
I don't believe in great man theory, I am saying that calling them capitalists is too generous. They are the welfare queens, their market share protected by selective regulations, their failures subsidized. No one else gets that level of government intervention on economic matters than the rich. I am saying call a spade a spade, they are OLIGARCHS NOT CAPOTALISTS.
Corruption has existed in every societal system humans have ever created. It is not JUST capitalism. Even in basic tribal societies people make dirty deals.
1
-
@MichelleHell "Who is being apathetic, the one who defends the banner and ideology of capitalism, or the one who has actually tried to start their own business to be run equitably?"
Your example doesn't really work here.
"The ideology of capitalism is not teaching people about capitalism."
What??? That's quite the assumption.
"I didn't learn anything until Marxists taught me, and then I was able to use my experience and understand how and why the system is corrupt"
It's more complex than you assume. The poor management is a result of people with bad incentives, not a feature inherent to capitalism. Stalin was awful, too. Lenin, Mao, all horrific leaders. The USA did more harm globally, but they treated their citizens better. Even african americans were treated better than 50% or more of the chinese population between 1964 till the 1990's. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need more democracy first and foremost, and government intervention second, because it needs to follow the will of the people in order for it to have any chance at being just and equitable.
"No capitalist or believer in capitalism ever convinced me anything except the desire to escape a system of deep ignorance."
That's because they're pro-oligarchy not pro-capitalism. Oligarchy is indefensible, capitalism does have some merit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Most of the online space is more interested in making content than solid ideas and on the ground organizing. I understand, if it's your job you have to make money to eat. I was turned off by how hostile FD was to the criticism that the left could do better at reaching out to the rust belt and middle america. The concept of material conditions is not applied when thinking about the dirt poor rural people who happen to be white christians. It strikes me as essentialism. The left has the objectively correct answers, they just have to figure out how to reach the demographic, and FD seems VERY opposed to even entertaining that concept (in the whole of the online left?). And I, as an atheist, mixed but mostly passing able bodied man get a lot of unpleasant responses from some leftists, even though I grew up in the bottom 10-15% of US income, so most leftists grew up with way more privilege than I have/had, and the gaslighting is infuriating. Like, we need healthcare, food and shelter, not all this wish washy culture wars BS. If we had free mental healthcare the whole nation would shift left, almost overnight. But we can't play that long, indirect game, for some reason.
1
-
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 I'm with you on the coalition building, but I think the left's greatest issue is branding. Fighting climate change is degrowth, trans activism lacks the nuance it needs to convince people, gun regulation is supported by a majority of NRA members, why can't democrats convince NRA members to vote in their own interest> Cause our rhetoric sucks, and our community building is basically non-existent.
I have found republicans have a harder time saying people shouldn't get free food and shelter when you introduce it by asking if there's a max number of people they'd be willing to house via the prison system, then ask why only criminals are the only americans guaranteed basic food and shelter. Republicans think communism is oligarchy, republicans think the 09 bailouts were communism, they think overbearing regulation is inherent in communism, but that's just not true, at all. They hate Monsanto, and they don't like the Iraq war. They hate the Sacklers. We are ostensibly on the same side. And, imo it's our fault for letting the alt-right choose the framing. The idea that we have to convince them is BS, they're in agreement. We have to effectively explain ourselves and show our understanding of the concept material analysis.
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Right? Imo, the cultural divide seems to be the right wing pundits (bourgeoise to the left, globalists to the right, aristocrats historically) intentionally misattributing symptoms of the oligarchy's mismanagement. Like, they're worried about the kids but they can't accept that it's guns or a mental health crisis so they go after whatever new cultural phenomena is the least understood. It's not climate change causing supply chain issues, it's the CHINESE. It's not corporations raising prices when inflation makes headlines to give them excuses to raise prices EVEN MORE, it's government interference.
I think a major issue is that while we do have mostly aligned economic interests, the difference in lifestyles between rural and city, and language divides make it more difficult to reach across to them. The left needs to go there and just listen for a while, and then work WITH the rural folks on policy they'd support, rather than coming in and being prescriptive from the beginning and running the risk of appearing patronizing.
It is a weird situation, indeed. Civilization has gotten SO ridiculously complex. Our financial system is so complex, no one knows how it works, so they can't effectively reform it. I find the foreign influence is a better argument to convince conservatives to nationalize major corporations. Why would the USA leave essential infrastructure like information and electricity open to Chinese or other Eastern interference via buying controlling interest in companies. Major institutions that make the world run are not known, like DTCC and ASML, probably the 2 most powerful companies in the world. Individually, they are more powerful than the entire Business Roundtable.
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 I also just want to point out how weird it is conservatives are always talking about someone else's junk. I cannot comprehend how a group that's actually sex-averse can be so obsessed with what other people do in the bedroom. Whenever they bring it up, I always say "#1 freedom, and #2, really weird, why do you want to make me talk about someone elses sex life/identity, who isn't even in the room? it's creepy and voyeuristic." it shuts down the conversation real quick, and puts the pressure on them to justify themselves, but internally. It's actually quite accusatory, while remaining polite and you're taking yourself the moral high ground, even from their perspective. You can throw in some bible verses about not judging, for effect. lol, make them contend with their own script. Or maybe not you, but the left should as a rhetorical tactic, generally. Cause the bible should be our ally in this. The protestants who founded this country laid the ideological groundwork for Karl Marx, I shit you not. They came up with the concept of a classless, moneyless society. The USA was one of if not the first secular state. The USA was founded because they wanted to give out free land. Peasants didn't pay to live on land until enclosure began, and it really came to a head around the late 16th/early17th century in Brittan, there were something like 5 peasant rebellions against the commoditization of land, and Protestants took up the cause, and the catholics and episcopals opposed it. America was founded on proto-socialism. Socialists are actually the most american. The USA kept giving out free land until 1976, with the creation of the Bureau of Land Management, and the US middle class has been sliding backwards ever since.
'Atun-Shei Films: In Defense of Puritanism' he's a history major with an emphasis on the founding of the country-civil war. He's also got a bibliography in the description.
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Yeah, it does seem like we're moving backwards, especially on womens and LGBTQ+ issues. But the conservatives seem like they want it in name only, because those conservative states are flipping blue, cause bodily autonomy isn't a joke. Kansas turned blue, MI is straight blue, Wisconsin is blue. I have a feeling republicans overplayed their hand. The republican front-runner could be in prison by the time of the election. Fox is getting sued by Dominion, Proud Boys are a terrorist organization. I think the fed is responding, finally. We will likely see the republican party implode and disappear. They're torn between the financial backers, and the populist MAGA base who are actually more misinformed socialists with right wing social policies than actual fiscal conservatives, which is the main goal of the orthodox republicans.
I think we have a small number of proper fascists, and a lot of disaffected country folk who don't understand the modern logistics and governance, so they reject the entire concept of modernity and attempt to return to tradition, but those espousing the 'return to tradition' are actually just con-men hired by the oligarchs. I see most conservatives as overwhelmed by the rapid change (more change in 35 years than from the founding of Sumeria, 9,000 years ago, until the founding of the nation) which is understandable. I don't think any group is adapting well to this change. Because they can't control how they react to the changes, they try to stop the changes around them, instead. That doesn't mean that they're all reachable, or that there aren't some genuine fascists, but I think this describes a significant portion of those who appear fascist.
Indeed we do, but I'm hopeful. Republicans are tearing each other apart.
TY, I was going to say the same to you. I've been really enjoying your well-reasoned replies. I just wish this sort of conversation was in the main-stream consciousness of leftist/socialist/progressive politics. I didn't respond for a few days because I wasn't sure if you were going to write a second response before my reply, or if you wanted to wait until after.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1