Permanently Deleted
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 19Comments 1,667Joined 1 yr. ago
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml
Posts
19
Comments
1,667
Joined
1 yr. ago
Germans were no more responsible for WWI than the British, French, etc.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Interesting how the paper picks East Timor/Indonesia as a case study but makes no mention of the massacres of the PKI and suspected communists, which the US was ambivalent, if not supportive about.
Any serious study of resistance movements around the world will paint a very different picture, one in which nonviolence is frequently met with slaughter, and people turn to violence specifically because nonviolence failed.
The fact of the matter is that people living in the imperial core cannot be well versed in the history of every country in the world (to the extent that we can even exert influence in the first place), and this allows the media to either ignore things like the massacres in Indonesia, or spin them in such a way to justify the preferred side through biased framing. The thing the paper cites as a major determining factor of success or failure is defections from security forces, but what if those security forces come from thousands of miles away?
Trying to assert a universal principle on a tactical level regarding such broad categories is kind of silly in the first place. It's too broad. You have to assess what you're trying to accomplish and formulate a strategy to get there based on the particular situation you find yourself in.
From "The Jakarta Method:"
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.
The wordplay is clever. Somebody's big mad that people are blaming the British for something they did
Might want to examine why people making fun of one of the most blatantly evil empires of all time offends you.
Do you not understand that it's a joke?
Obviously we all know the paper is talking about the microorganism, but since the real cause of the famine wasn't the microorganism but the British, it's funny to act like the paper is insulting the British rather than talking about the microorganism.
That's the only way I can interpret your comment in any coherent way, that the joke just went completely over your head.
The British were responsible for those deaths while the Chinese were not.
Tbf, the article should probably mention the fact that machine learning programs designed to play chess blow everything else out of the water.
Thank you, brainfart on my part.
tl;dr Because that's communism.
Let's look at the history of labor movements in the US.
At first, yeah, you started with a pretty broad cross section of society (the Knights of Labor, for example), as well as some more radical elements. Then you had the Haymarket Affair, where people were protesting for an 8-hour work day, and the cops started killing protesters, and someone (possibly a provocateur) threw a bomb at the cops. The press went wild with it and it kicked off a red scare where many labor organizations kicked out and distanced themselves from Anarchists and Marxists.
Fast forward to the Great Depression, and you've got a new wave of radicalization because people are seeing the failures of capitalism, and that led to the New Deal. There was another red scare as the US and USSR became rivals, and that served as "the stick," while the New Deal policies served as "the carrot." The labor movement once again distanced itself from the more radical elements on the promise of a cooperative government. All the communists, who were more concerned with a broad movement of solidarity, got kicked out of groups like the AFL-CIO, and the unions were considered acceptable because they were (at least to a degree) narrowly self-interested.
These unions flourished in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's, during this post-New Deal, Great Society era. They weren't necessarily the most inclusive, but they worked well for their members. However, in the 70's an economic phenomenon emerged that was termed, "Shrink Stagflation" - a period of high inflation and high unemployment at the same time. The Keynesian economic model (which had had a broad consensus up until that point) said that you deal with unemployment by having the government spend more money, and then when unemployment drops, you reduce spending to avoid inflation. It didn't have a clear answer for what to do when both were high at once, that wasn't really supposed to happen.
The Carter administration made the decision to focus on inflation instead of unemployment, which screwed over the labor unions. But this was a broad bipartisan consensus among the Washington elites, and when Carter was replaced by Reagan, he did the same and pushed it further. Under this new paradigm of "supply side economics," people's identities as consumers was emphasized over their identity as workers. Even having purged radical elements and having become relatively toothless, unions were vilified and blamed for making goods expensive, and they didn't really have the power to do much about it.
Question of economics were increasingly moved outside of the realm of public accountability and influence, being left to "experts" and both parties having broad agreement about things, but we still had to vote over something, and so we had the emergence of the culture war. Around the 90's you had some rather boring presidents and debates, because it was the height of "the end of history," where there was this idea that all the big questions and conflicts had been resolved and it was just a question of little tweaks here and there.
However, in the 2000's, as it became clear that conditions were declining and the wealth gap was growing, there has been a new wave of radicalization, on both the right and the left, which started to really manifest in 2016. But it is very much in its infancy, without a lot of experience or strength. It's been over 40 years since we had strong unions (and even those ones were defanged). Now, we're fighting against entrenched anti-union and anti-worker policies, practices, and beliefs. And progress is being made, but it's a long, uphill battle, and a lot of it is young people figuring things out from scratch.
Humans are the ones who produce the things needed for a higher quality life. The problem is the 1% of humans at the top who steal the goods everyone else makes, not the majority of humans who contribute to making the world a better place.
I find it really entertaining when some low information group becomes aware of information that was fully publicly available before, but which the members vehemently refused to acknowledge purely because they hated/distrusted the people saying it and it didn't track with their narratives.
Funny how extreme poverty starts racing down as soon as China adopted capitalist market reforms.
I wonder if there was any opposition to those reforms, like, maybe some kind of big protest right as they were being introduced 🤔
When Kent State happened, surveys showed an overwhelming majority of Americans blamed the students for getting shot more than they blamed the guard for shooting them. There were all sorts of fake news stories going around on TV about how the protests were filled with outside agitators doing things like putting LSD in the water supply. It was only once the opportunity for a reaction was safely past that they said, "Oopsie, we made a mistake." There have been many other cases where the government and media lied until it determined it was safe enough to tell the truth, including the justifications for several major wars.
"Oh, well this gun costs less than your watch, and yet: hand it over."
This also happened to me once too. I was working at Amazon as a picker, and they unveiled a new tool that lets you put in electronically if you're planning to leave. One morning, I put in that I was planning to leave in a month. Before lunch that same day, I was suddenly fired.
Hey, I agree with you, a two state solution isn't viable (albeit for the opposite reason, that Isreal is a beligerant, expansionist, genocidal state that should not exist). Now, as a "leftist," I'm sure that you'd agree that, if everyone's going to be part of the same state, then of course everyone should have equal rights, including voting rights, correct? You want every Palestinian to have the same voice in government that Israeli citizens do, right?
Or is it that when you call for a one state solution, what you mean is that you want to continue denying them rights within your own state while also preventing them from having their own state? To seize their territory and then have them remain as second class citizens who are denied fundamental human rights? For your race to reign dominant over others?
You don't need to answer, I think we all know the answer to that question, fascist.
You're absolutely valid and not overreacting. Unfortunately, depending on where you live, you might not have many other options - but if you can look into other modes of transportation you should.
Driving is dangerous, and not everyone is cut out for it. The great thing about public transit is that it's much safer and less stressful, it doesn't demand focus and attention - and that benefits drivers too, because it means fewer bad drivers will feel like they have to drive and it reduces traffic in general.
It all comes down to what the alternative is. If your alternative to driving is relying on others to drive you places, it'll reduce your independence or be expensive (if you use rideshares). But if the alternative is biking or taking a train, then by all means go for it. There's lots of reasons cars suck, danger, stress, insurance, gas, traffic, pollution, lots of reasons to look into other options.