[META] Never change, lemmy.ml
Straight from the manifesto, page 12:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Accuse me of picking and choosing the most salient passage, but I would say this doesn't leave too much room for interpretation about what the word "forcible" means. And no, you don't get to talk your way out by saying 'overthrowing the status quo via legislation enforced by police would be considered "by force", regardless of whether the police use violence.' Isn't ACAB a quintessentially leftist term? Or does it not apply when the police work for you instead of against you?
Also, just to give a counterexample to your "evil autocrat" problem: Gandhi managed to get rid of British colonial rule without ever advocating for or using violence. So no, the idea that violent oppression justifies a violent response is flawed. Violence always begets more violence, there is literally no exception. You can't murder your way to a fair and just society, it always ends in oppression.
Of course it is. Silly me, how could I forget.
How do you say "Please sign your comment with the GPG key for torvalds@kernel.org" in Finnish? Google Translate says "Allekirjoita kommenttisi GPG-avaimella osoitteeseen torvalds@kernel.org", is that correct?
Okay, honestly, would you eat a Bill Gates or Elon Musk? They don't look particularly tasty to me. Bezos maybe, he seems to be in good shape (although likely chock full of steroids), but the vast majority of them are frumpy old dudes or dudettes who probably taste like leather. I don't think that eating them would be particularly enjoyable.
This isn't about whether or not billionaires are essential, but whether getting rid of them would substantially change anything.
Assume, for instance, that we make owning (or earning) more than a billion dollars (per year) illegal by putting a 100% tax on every dollar afterwards. Then billionaires would simply move most of their assets abroad or find some other loophole that lets them avoid this, like setting up a bunch of smaller companies that each have $999 million. Unless the whole world follows suit, it won't change anything, and that's not going to happen because any country that's willing to give them a safe haven would make a killing by doing so.
Also, if this DID happen, what makes you think they'd continue to work trying to make more money and not just spend more time playing golf instead? Whatever revenue you'd expect in taxes would simply not occur because once there's no more incentive to earn more, there's no more incentive to produce. Ironically, it would probably lead to far more quasi-billionaires because other multi-millionaires would likely pick up the slack where the big guys throw the towel, but I don't see how regular people would benefit.
But perhaps you can explain what you have in mind?
Well, a draw means that neither of us is more correct than the other, at least that's what I'll take away from this.
Sounds like you forgot how to write proper English along with that.
Hope you're doing okay, bud. Try not to work so hard.
That reminds me of certain a Reddit or Twitter post some time ago where a recruiter literally told the creator of a certain library / framework that he didn't have the required amount of experience to get the job.
The big issue with "trying" communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that violent revolution is exactly what Marx said was essential in order to bring about the communist utopia he envisioned. That's precisely why communism has such a bad rep among anyone but edgy teenagers and college students. Are you telling me Marx was wrong about this? If so, please elaborate.
Okay, so let's say that "eating the rich" wasn't the problem. Then what was? Corruption in the government? Who would have thought that a government that disowned and deported people by the trainload would turn out to be corrupt? suprised_pikachu.jpg
Same thing happened in China BTW. People were starving in front grain depots filled to the brim because the government had sold much of it abroad in order to create the appearance that their plans were working out perfectly. I think the moral of the story is likely that you can't murder your way to a fair and just society.
Yet for some reason, people keep thinking that if only they put the right person in charge, things would be different the next time and it would work out for sure. Which is funny, because Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all shared the same belief — that they had figured out the secret sauce of how to make communism work.
And no, I'm arguing that unrestrained capitalism is the answer either, but rather, that a mix of capitalism and socialism that dominates much of the world, even if imperfect, appears to be the best we can do. If you look at successful "communist" countries like China or Vietnam, you'll find that they both adopted elements of capitalism into their economies, and they weren't doing all that great until they did.
Basically, there has to be an element of risk and reward, because people don't make an effort if there's nothing for them to gain (yes, that's the old joke that communism doesn't work because nobody works under communism). People will always strive to maximize personal gain. If they can't make more money by working more, they'll make more free time by working less, unless you punish them for slacking off, in which case you've just created forced labor. See, no matter how you try to approach this, you can't force people not to be selfish without tyranny. It's been tried time and time again and it always ended in bloodshed.
Okay, well I don't care enough about winning arguments on the Internet in order to write a whole research paper right now, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and call it a draw.
Do you really think when people say "eat the rich" they mean "eat farmers?"
No, I brought that up because that's what historically happened. And in light of that, continuing to use a phrase like that at least seems to be somewhat poor in taste. But that's besides the point.
Do you really think if Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Elon Musk all died today that the world would be worse off?
I honestly don't know, but what makes you think the world would be better off if they were dead? Unless they had pledged all their money to charity (which I believe Gates has actually done), what would their deaths really change for you and I?
Getting rid of them will definitely not "get rid of the knowledge" because the only knowledge they have is how to buy the right financial advisors.
That might be true for people who inherited all of their wealth, but if that's what you're trying to say, you picked some piss poor examples, because all three of them weren't born anywhere near as wealthy as they are now and took some considerable risks in order to get there, and they all created literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process, most of them rather well paid (though we can certainly argue about Amazon).
Just to be perfectly clear, I'm by no means saying that things are okay the way they are, and that all we have to do is let rich people continue to do whatever they want. All I'm saying is that things aren't as simple as we want them to be and the easy solution is rarely the correct one.
Okay, please send some links where I can read about this. I'll wait.
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
Well that's the thing, "historical precedent" means that this has actually demonstrably happened before, in which case there should be data on it. That's why I asked for proof. Which I understand you're most likely not going to be able to provide, since there obviously can't be any reliable data on the amount of clandestine abortions that happened before it was legalized.
First of all, with the "death or injury" part of this, I don't see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births.
I mean, I'm not a woman, but if I were, and I was given the choice between having an illegal procedure that had a good chance of injury or death (and no possible recourse), and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, I think I would choose the latter, because it seems a lot safer, no matter how inconvenient.
This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah
Well, in the absence of any hard data, I find that idea more convincing than the opposite, but again, I'll admit that I'm not a woman. But unless you are, you're likely no more of an expert on this than I am. And even if you are AND have gone through all this, you'd just be a single data point of anecdotal evidence, which would not be enough to convince me.
Good thing I wasn't claiming that then. I'm saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.
You realize that for statistical purposes, "zero" and "negligible" are absolutely identical, right? It's called a null hypothesis, look it up.
I'm pretty sure "eat the rich" is not comparable to "kill 5 million Ukrainians."
Well, that's the thing, that's actually almost exactly what happend. The Soviets basically labeled all the (relatively) wealthy farmers as class enemies and started deporting them en masse in order to seize their lands and turn them over to collectivized farming. The problem was that along with those farmers, they also got rid of the knowledge they had about how to work the land effectively, and as a result, the following harvests were increasingly poor, which is what caused the mass starvation.
The same thing happened during the Great Leap Forward in China.
And I'm also pretty sure 'rich person' is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality.
Are you saying that because they went by income instead of by race, it technically wasn't genocide, just mass murder? I'm not sure that makes it any better. Also, don't forget that a lot of the poor people died as well, so it didn't even help those it was supposed to benefit.
Almost had me with that. Glad you decided to put that /S at the end.
Do you really have no idea how git works?
Please sign your response with the GPG key for torvalds@kernel.org or I'm going to call BS.
I honestly wouldn't know where to start looking for data on that. But I didn't make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome, based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn't easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption if they haven't changed their mind on it by then.
Also, they may simply choose to use birth control more often, and/or insist on their partners wearing a condom.
From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.
Communism does not advocate genocide any more than capitalism does.
So "eat the rich" is just edgy humor or what?
Weird, because somehow, every time that every time communism has been tried, it involved massive genocide, though perhaps one could argue that the majority of it was the result of incompetency, because the majority of the victims starved to death as a result of disastrous agricultural policies.
The Holodomor in the Ukraine killed about 3.5-5 million people. The Great Leap Forward killed somewhere between 15-55 million. The Khmer Rouge killed about a million. And I'm not trying to make excuses for National Socialism here, but you have to admit that even when taking to low estimates, communism's death toll is far higher than that of the Nazis. OP is correct, they're all evil ideologies.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Git isn't even that old. It was first publicly released in 2005. Unless you're literally Linus Torvalds, it's impossible to have used it that long. And I assume Linus does have a pretty good idea of how it works.
Well I'm glad we can at least agree that genocide isn't ideal and generally a suboptimal way to solve any problems.