I respect it but if you're American and trying to take the word back, I'm afraid you're a little too late. It's a political party now and they're all-in on corporatism.
This is an interesting perception, because if you mean American libertarianism then this doesn't really make sense. Lemmy's creators are communist and intended it to be anti-corporate. It is designed in a decentralized manner specifically to avoid situations where companies can own and profit from it.
The kinds of platforms I would see as being libertarian (in the American sense) are the diaspora of privately owned social media companies.
Electoral politics are not the only way to change things. In fact, it's a very poor way, as evidenced by the fact that genocide is now the only option. Every bit of progress that's been made has been achieved through mass movements; protesting, coalition building, engaging in direct action or civil disobedience... until the politicians are forced to appease them in order to keep hold of their power. Would electoral politics have ended segregation, were it not for the civil rights movement? Would women have been granted the right to vote, were it not for the suffragette movement?
You would not recognize the reality we'd be living in today if everyone from back then thought like you that all they can do about injustice is vote for the "lesser evil."
My take? Vote your conscience, or not at all if that's where your conscience leads you. I can't bring myself to fault anyone for refusing to vote for a "lesser evil". At the end of the day, electoral politics just isn't worth the amount of time and energy people give to it. That time and energy is better spent engaging in direct action, community building, and just general activism. I have long been disillusioned that electoral politics can bring about meaningful progress.
That this is the choice our "elected representatives" are asking us to make is sick beyond measure. I actually want to just thank you for cutting the bullshit and just asking the question directly so I can respond to it in the way any sane person should, by rejecting the premise that these are our only options. The answer is no, not more or less, none. I acknowledge that the third option of no genocide is not achievable through electoral means, which is why I support the protests, encampments, and uncommitted delegates.
This is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that Allende choosing reform over revolution is what resulted in the US interference. The US has been known to interfere in revolutionary movements as well.
It baffles me that marxists will dismiss anarchist ideas using the exact same talking points that liberals use to dismiss communism.
Communism also failed to fend off capitalism - and before you say b-but actually the USSR lasted a really long time, ask yourself if the USSR at any point actually lived up to the ideals of the revolution. We should be focusing on finding new solutions that work, and being dismissive of anarchist ideas doesn't help.
It isn't just the wording that's problematic, it's the way Marx was dismissive towards the existing methods of collectivism and horizontal organizing. Yes, subsistence farming is a "primitive" mode of production, but the way peasants and indigenous people organized and collectivized resources is not irrelevant to modern industrial modes of production. Marx dismissed the way peasants and indigenous people collectivized resources as "primitive" and argued in favor of centralized power structures. I believe this to be a mistake.
Calling it communism may be a bit of a reach, but collectivist social organizing in a variety of ways was and still is a very common element of indigenous cultures around the world.
This link focuses on family and child rearing, but it's a good window into how Australian aboriginals express collectivist principles.
"Primitive communism" is a derogatory term with racist undertones. The dismissiveness towards existing methods of collectivism is IMO one of the biggest flaws of Marxist theory. The establishment of an intelligentsia is an idea rooted in this paternalistic arrogance. If Marx had acknowledged the Russian peasantry as an important political class the Russian revolution might have gone very differently.
I wholeheartedly agree, I've been going down the pipeline myself and this has been my approach. Recently I've been working with family and neighbors to get a community garden going.
Definitely not. The 3 arrows are a really common tattoo (in north America at least), and can symbolize anything from the forward direction of time to family and friendship.
It's a tattoo that's so common that pretty much everyone who gets one ascribes their own meaning to it.
Christian (conservative) values do not differentiate between fear and respect. Preachers harp on their equivalence at the pulpit on a regular basis. They are taught by their respected authority figures that to fearis to respect, and they reinforce those values in their children. It's no wonder that authority figures in communities that hold these values are some of the most abusive.
Schmoo @ Schmoo @slrpnk.net Posts 5Comments 494Joined 2 yr. ago
I respect it but if you're American and trying to take the word back, I'm afraid you're a little too late. It's a political party now and they're all-in on corporatism.