On one hand I think it’s very positive that everyone starts using decentralised platforms that don’t run on profit, that work for their users and not their shareholders, but on the other hand having a space mostly without conservatives is great.
I don’t get why you purposefully obfuscate what ruling class I am referring to. What kind of example are managers and drivers when I am clearly talking about the people comprising the decision making body or Communist party under communism? I think that’s simple enough and also the fact that any communist government that survived long enough gradually became more and more authoritarian, more detached from the people - never in the other direction. The evidence is there and we both know it. The burden of proof that this isn’t the case is on you, not me…
You simply dismissed my claims without any evidence on that. Although you seem to like to meticulously answer every sentence separately, you dismiss the core of the argument. I understand most communism movements start off with noble and admirable intentions and I’m not ignoring this, but the fundamental issue here is that in the longterm, by design, in order to preserve state power, for whatever reason, you’d be heading to the opposite direction of a stateless society.
I’ve read enough Lenin to understand this from his descriptions of the ideal Party. I don’t need reading recommendations, thank you. I am not saying anything profound here, this is like mainstream critique of marxism.
What does it mean to have a misreading in this context (last point)? You are just reiterating what they said but reassuring us that the most “advanced” among them are not going to turn into a ruling class because…?
Any form of political power is poison. You don’t get to a state-less, egalitarian society by going in the exact opposite direction, by enforcing a ruling class and an hierarchy like any else.
And you can see this practically not in any massacre, genocide, famine or war communist countries have inflicted, these are up for discussion. The actual evidence that this is not the right path is in the lack of accountability of the governing Party under communism, the lack of freedom of speech inside that party and the decision making body, the absolute discipline required to be in it or you get kicked out for having a different opinion for any topic, the gradual increase in authoritarianism by it and the Party’s gradual alienation from the people. These all are fundamental structural problems that stem from the fact that you set out to solve a problem by endorsing it and practising it.
People are never going to free themselves from hierarchy and the state if they don’t learn to live without it in practise, take decisions for themselves, develop the skills, knowledge and tactics to abolish it etc. You are/become what you practise in your life, not what you preach.
Yeah I’m sure, the US would never let that slide, just like in Laos, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
I’m sorry I assumed that, people’s goal when making comments on semantics is usually to obfuscate the point
As far as I’m concerned, the 92-01 war had the support of the US along with Russia. But that’s way besides the point I’m making.
I didn’t mean that it’s 30 years strictly against the US, I am only saying that these people have been tortured by war for 30 years and all people care about is to call the Talibans terrorists, not the people’s suffering by the world powers’ interventions.
Instead of playing with numbers, we could just focus on the issue of portraying every enemy of the US as a terrorist and mocking anything these people go through just because someone the west doesn’t like prevailed. Of course they are religious fundamentalists and oppressing, especially to women, but they are a legitimate government as much as you don’t like it and the people have the right to sort their society morals on their own just like the west did - it feels stupid to articulate such obvious statements, but people don’t get it.
It’s funny cause they legit have a terrorism problem with the once US funded IS. If you people had ever cared to see what has happened to Afghanistan after the Talibans took over you’d know that the terrorists are constantly bombing public spaces, public infrastructure etc.
The Talibans may be extremists and fundamentalists but terrorists? That’s a CIA talking point - any violence against us, the west, is terrorism.
The US abandoned Afghanistan in ruins after 30 years of war, bombing people and infrastructure and now they have to rebuild their country on their own, forgotten by the world. They are starving, they are extremely poor and because they are so vulnerable, the IS was able to establish itself there and terrorise the people. So I don’t get the irony here, you people are just hypocrites and don’t remember who caused all this in the first place.
First Arab country to do so, sad
Yeah same. I just try to cook a meal on Sunday but it doesn’t get me through the entire week. Not to mention I usually need a second meal at night when I work out. It’s too much.
I stopped reading at “make bread”. Waaay too little free time for that
Yesterday 21th of July was the hottest day in recorded global history. This year’s February, April and June were the hottest respective months in recorded history. Just putting this out there
My issue with nuclear energy isn’t that it’s dangerous or that it’s inherently bad. The world needs a stable source of energy that compensates for wind and solar fluctuations anyways. For the current realistic alternatives that’s either going to be nuclear or coal/oil/natural gas. We have nothing else for this purpose, end of discussion.
My problem is the assumption underlying this discussion about nuclear energy that it somehow will solve all of our problems or that it will somehow allow us to continue doing business as usual. That’s categorically not the case. The climate crisis has multiple fronts that need to be dealt with and the emissions is just one of them. Even if we somehow managed to find the funds and resources to replace all non renewable energy with nuclear, we would still have solved just 10% of the problem, and considering that this cheap new energy will allow us to increase our activities and interventions in the planet, the situation will only worsen.
Nuclear energy is of course useful, but it’s not the answer. Never has technology been the answer for a social and political issue. We can’t “science and invent” our way out of this, it’s not about the tech, it’s about who decides how it will be used, who will profit from it, who and how much will be affected by it etc. If you want to advocate for a way to deal with the climate crisis you have to propose a complete social and political plan that will obviously include available technologies, so stop focusing on technologies and start focusing on society and who takes the decisions.
One simple example would be the following: no matter how green your energy is, if the trend in the US is to have increasingly bigger cars and no public transport, then the energy demands will always increase and no matter how many nuclear plants you build, they will only serve as an additional source and not as a replacement. So no matter how many plants you build, the climate will only deteriorate.
This is literally how the people in charge have decided it will work. Any new developing energy source that is invented serves only to increase the consumption, not to replace previous technologies. That’s the case with solar and wind as well. So all of this discussion you all make about nuclear Vs oil or whatever is literally irrelevant. The problem is social and political, not technological.
You do realize what instant you are in right?