This is very class reductionist. Rich people are still hurt by bigotry, especially celebrities. Not every rich person is a cis, hetero, white, man.
These issues predate capitalism. Not making full use of minorities and oppressed people actually hurts the capitalist economy especially in terms of innovation. It would be much more efficient for the rich if everyone were giving their best.
These divisions are far from the only reason people don’t turn on the rich. People just don’t support socialism and I can see why. Things like the USSR and China are what happened when marxism was tried. We need to come up with better economic and political systems that actually work if we want to get anywhere. We then need to remove the stains these previous systems caused. I don’t think that’s gonna happen with the current crop of leftists as they are idealists still using 100s of years old ideologies.
You don’t understand what I am saying do you? These issues predate the rich people we have now, and even hurt some of them. Billionaires are still bad people, but they aren’t the only problematic people in societies.
They have a vested interest in keeping the working class divided amongst itself.
Obviously other problematic people exist. But the wealthy are literally spending money to make sure we care more about being mad at each other than being mad at them.
I hear this said a lot. To me it sounds like different billionaires support different causes because of what they believe and what’s in their best interest. Obviously they are against the working class; I am not trying to deny that. That doesn’t automatically mean they support bigots.
Do you have evidence that most billionaires support bigots? If not your words are nothing but conjecture.
It’s not about supporting bigots, and I didn’t say that. It’s almost as if you’re deliberately obfuscating the point with bullshit.
I’m saying they’re paying for messaging with the goal of manipulating the working class in to fighting amongst itself. It’s literally the reason outlets like Fox News exist in the state they currently do.
What percentage of billionaires support fox news or similar organizations?
How am I obfuscating anything? You made a claim that billionaires support people who divide the working class based on things like race, gender, sexuality and so on as many others gave claimed. I asked for evidence as is my right. That seems simple enough to me.
If you can provide the evidence then I will accept what you are saying. Until then I am not gonna take you seriously. I see no reason why billionaires wouldn’t also be divided on political lines since everyone else seems to be.
They literally are, not because they are firsthand committing moral atrocities like murder, but because they intentionally keep structures in place that bring about moral atrocity, despite being the only people capable of changing them.
You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about since if anything there’s been a wealth of leftist literature within the past couple of decades, and if anything ideologies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism are experiencing a renaissance.
I also find it highly suspect that your first go-to example of leftism is a failed authoritarian state like the Soviet Union rather than groups like the Zapatistas, the anti-fascist movement in the US, Food Not Bombs, many horizontally structured local coalitions, or other much better examples of leftism manifesting in helpful and vibrant ways.
Class reductionism is harmful, though – I’ll agree with you there.
You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about since if anything there’s been a wealth of leftist literature within the past couple of decades, and if anything ideologies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism are experiencing a renaissance.
Anarcho-communism comes from Krapotkin, right? He wrote the book on it. He died over 100 years ago. Sure there might have been newer literature but it’s still based on 100+ year old ideology.
Anarchism is better in many ways than Marxism. The issue I have is that they get steam rolled by more organized regimes in places like Kronstadt in the USSR, or what happened to anarchist communes in Spain and Ukraine. I don’t think they can stand up against a well organized army. I would love to be proven wrong obviously. As long as regimes like fascism, marxism, capitalism are still around it will be difficult to make communes stick without some external force to defend them.
I choose the USSR as Marxism is far more popular in the UK (and I think the US too) than Anarchism. It’s the most obvious example of a failed Marxist regime.
Not every rich person is a cis, hetero, white, man.
Don’t give a fuck about rich people regardless of race, sex, or anything else. Just because a group of rich people can also inadvertently harm themselves doesn’t mean they are not effectively 100% to blame.
Things like the USSR and China are what happened when marxism was tried.
The USSR was what happened when dictators pretended to be socialist and victimized their subjects. This has little to do with Marx’ economic theories.
I don’t think that’s gonna happen with the current crop of leftists as they are idealists still using 100s of years old ideologies.
I agree with you here. I’ve started to see the left/right spectrum as not very useful, and the authoritarian/anarchist spectrum more appropriate. If peace, stability, and sustainability are ever achieved, it won’t be at the point of a gun or the order of an authoritarian.
Don’t give a fuck about rich people regardless of race, sex, or anything else. Just because a group of rich people can also inadvertently harm themselves doesn’t mean they are not effectively 100% to blame.
I want evidence rich people caused this mess. It’s said all the time that they are at fault for rascism, sexism, homophobia, etc but never proven. These ideologies go back to slave times, long before the world of capitalism and billionaires. It’s possible some are exploiting existing divisions to suit their own ends, but that’s different from being the sole cause of a problem.
The USSR was what happened when dictators pretended to be socialist and victimized their subjects. This has little to do with Marx’ economic theories.
Then why did it happen in almost every country with a socialist revolution lead by marxists? The USSR is only one example, you could look at China or North Korea for example.
I agree with you here. I’ve started to see the left/right spectrum as not very useful, and the authoritarian/anarchist spectrum more appropriate. If peace, stability, and sustainability are ever achieved, it won’t be at the point of a gun or the order of an authoritarian.
Anarchism is great until a well organized army comes around and invades them. If someone can find a way to build a commune without it getting invaded by tankies or fascists or the USA then I am all ears.
I don’t know why you’d be an apologist for the rich unless you are one. I don’t care much to get into it anymore with someone defending the rich, if you can’t understand this nothing I say would change that. I mean you can’t even see that the issue with the USSR, i.e. a dictator is also a problem in China and N. Korea.
If someone can find a way to build a commune without it getting invaded by tankies or fascists or the USA then I am all ears.
Any tiny group, commune or not, surrounded on all sides by powerful hostile enemies will fail (unless they are tolerated). Anarchism (anarcho-communism) if it’s at all possible, will come from cultural changes on the bottom, not from some privileged commune successfully fighting the world. It will come from economies failing due to people rejecting them and making, growing, and sharing. It will come when people can see that cooperation is superior to mutual exploitation.
IDK if anarchism is possible, but everything other than anarchism involves powerful groups forcing their way on vulnerable populations and I know that’s inherently wrong. I support what’s right, not what’s most likely.
If you make a serious claim the least you can do is provide some evidence. Otherwise why should I take anything you say seriously?
I’ve often wondered if anarchism is actually more just. How do you deal with things like criminals without resorting to vigilantism? You must have a solution to this if you want to build stable communes. I don’t read much anarchist literature as I don’t care for 100 year old books, so there might be a solution there.
Dismissing the practicality of an idea as being unimportant is not great. If you support something you know won’t work you aren’t helping anyone.
Edit: also I don’t know how you can call me an apologist for the rich. I am all for eating billionaires for breakfast, I just want it to be for the right reasons not something people have made up.
You know like a study or financial documents proving the majority of the bourgeoisie or even just billionaires support or fund rascist, sexist, homophobic or other kinds of organizations that attempt to divide people.
Even then I expect there to be exceptions like Bill Gates who are known for their philanthropy. Exceptions aren’t a reason to keep around billionaires of course as no individual should have that much power, money, or influence.
This is very class reductionist. Rich people are still hurt by bigotry, especially celebrities. Not every rich person is a cis, hetero, white, man.
These issues predate capitalism. Not making full use of minorities and oppressed people actually hurts the capitalist economy especially in terms of innovation. It would be much more efficient for the rich if everyone were giving their best.
These divisions are far from the only reason people don’t turn on the rich. People just don’t support socialism and I can see why. Things like the USSR and China are what happened when marxism was tried. We need to come up with better economic and political systems that actually work if we want to get anywhere. We then need to remove the stains these previous systems caused. I don’t think that’s gonna happen with the current crop of leftists as they are idealists still using 100s of years old ideologies.
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the rich???
You don’t understand what I am saying do you? These issues predate the rich people we have now, and even hurt some of them. Billionaires are still bad people, but they aren’t the only problematic people in societies.
They have a vested interest in keeping the working class divided amongst itself.
Obviously other problematic people exist. But the wealthy are literally spending money to make sure we care more about being mad at each other than being mad at them.
I hear this said a lot. To me it sounds like different billionaires support different causes because of what they believe and what’s in their best interest. Obviously they are against the working class; I am not trying to deny that. That doesn’t automatically mean they support bigots.
Do you have evidence that most billionaires support bigots? If not your words are nothing but conjecture.
It’s not about supporting bigots, and I didn’t say that. It’s almost as if you’re deliberately obfuscating the point with bullshit.
I’m saying they’re paying for messaging with the goal of manipulating the working class in to fighting amongst itself. It’s literally the reason outlets like Fox News exist in the state they currently do.
What percentage of billionaires support fox news or similar organizations?
How am I obfuscating anything? You made a claim that billionaires support people who divide the working class based on things like race, gender, sexuality and so on as many others gave claimed. I asked for evidence as is my right. That seems simple enough to me.
If you can provide the evidence then I will accept what you are saying. Until then I am not gonna take you seriously. I see no reason why billionaires wouldn’t also be divided on political lines since everyone else seems to be.
They literally are, not because they are firsthand committing moral atrocities like murder, but because they intentionally keep structures in place that bring about moral atrocity, despite being the only people capable of changing them.
So serial killers are not problematic then? Good to know.
You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about since if anything there’s been a wealth of leftist literature within the past couple of decades, and if anything ideologies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism are experiencing a renaissance.
I also find it highly suspect that your first go-to example of leftism is a failed authoritarian state like the Soviet Union rather than groups like the Zapatistas, the anti-fascist movement in the US, Food Not Bombs, many horizontally structured local coalitions, or other much better examples of leftism manifesting in helpful and vibrant ways.
Class reductionism is harmful, though – I’ll agree with you there.
Anarcho-communism comes from Krapotkin, right? He wrote the book on it. He died over 100 years ago. Sure there might have been newer literature but it’s still based on 100+ year old ideology.
Anarchism is better in many ways than Marxism. The issue I have is that they get steam rolled by more organized regimes in places like Kronstadt in the USSR, or what happened to anarchist communes in Spain and Ukraine. I don’t think they can stand up against a well organized army. I would love to be proven wrong obviously. As long as regimes like fascism, marxism, capitalism are still around it will be difficult to make communes stick without some external force to defend them.
I choose the USSR as Marxism is far more popular in the UK (and I think the US too) than Anarchism. It’s the most obvious example of a failed Marxist regime.
Don’t give a fuck about rich people regardless of race, sex, or anything else. Just because a group of rich people can also inadvertently harm themselves doesn’t mean they are not effectively 100% to blame.
The USSR was what happened when dictators pretended to be socialist and victimized their subjects. This has little to do with Marx’ economic theories.
I agree with you here. I’ve started to see the left/right spectrum as not very useful, and the authoritarian/anarchist spectrum more appropriate. If peace, stability, and sustainability are ever achieved, it won’t be at the point of a gun or the order of an authoritarian.
I want evidence rich people caused this mess. It’s said all the time that they are at fault for rascism, sexism, homophobia, etc but never proven. These ideologies go back to slave times, long before the world of capitalism and billionaires. It’s possible some are exploiting existing divisions to suit their own ends, but that’s different from being the sole cause of a problem.
Then why did it happen in almost every country with a socialist revolution lead by marxists? The USSR is only one example, you could look at China or North Korea for example.
Anarchism is great until a well organized army comes around and invades them. If someone can find a way to build a commune without it getting invaded by tankies or fascists or the USA then I am all ears.
LOL LOL! LOOLLLLLLLLL!
I don’t know why you’d be an apologist for the rich unless you are one. I don’t care much to get into it anymore with someone defending the rich, if you can’t understand this nothing I say would change that. I mean you can’t even see that the issue with the USSR, i.e. a dictator is also a problem in China and N. Korea.
Any tiny group, commune or not, surrounded on all sides by powerful hostile enemies will fail (unless they are tolerated). Anarchism (anarcho-communism) if it’s at all possible, will come from cultural changes on the bottom, not from some privileged commune successfully fighting the world. It will come from economies failing due to people rejecting them and making, growing, and sharing. It will come when people can see that cooperation is superior to mutual exploitation.
IDK if anarchism is possible, but everything other than anarchism involves powerful groups forcing their way on vulnerable populations and I know that’s inherently wrong. I support what’s right, not what’s most likely.
If you make a serious claim the least you can do is provide some evidence. Otherwise why should I take anything you say seriously?
I’ve often wondered if anarchism is actually more just. How do you deal with things like criminals without resorting to vigilantism? You must have a solution to this if you want to build stable communes. I don’t read much anarchist literature as I don’t care for 100 year old books, so there might be a solution there.
Dismissing the practicality of an idea as being unimportant is not great. If you support something you know won’t work you aren’t helping anyone.
Edit: also I don’t know how you can call me an apologist for the rich. I am all for eating billionaires for breakfast, I just want it to be for the right reasons not something people have made up.
What would you accept as evidence?
You know like a study or financial documents proving the majority of the bourgeoisie or even just billionaires support or fund rascist, sexist, homophobic or other kinds of organizations that attempt to divide people.
Even then I expect there to be exceptions like Bill Gates who are known for their philanthropy. Exceptions aren’t a reason to keep around billionaires of course as no individual should have that much power, money, or influence.