TheOubliette @ TheOubliette @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

1,482

Joined

2 yr. ago

The conditions under which the US could carry out a coordinated general strike would not look like the current US. And the demands would be subject to those conditions. US organized labor is largely beholden to capital and has no principled sense of solidarity, certainly beyond US borders, but often even within them. That would need to be developed through struggle and creating organization where there is little. See the federal workers getting screwed with by the administration? A very large percentage are unionized but their union is weak and poorly organized. They have simply accepted the dictates of their employer that they are not allowed to strike and therefore they have no basic infrastructure with which to organize actions or even think of themselves as workers that need to be militant and fight for one another.

Under current conditions the closest thing you will get to a general strike is popular riots. Those are expressions of social pain and frustration and they require no organizing.

It might sound like I'm not really answering the question, but that's because the question itself is wrong. It has flipped the problem on its head, which is to say, is too focused on what ideas would be good to demand under a general strike rather than how would you ever build the conditions for a general strike? Demands must be historically embedded, they must be relevant to the groups coordinating a strike, and they need to be clear-eyed about the capital strike that would occur adjacent to it. We cannot say what those demands would be other than they would not be about this administration. The US working class will lose fights over and over again under all administrations until it can be organized and directed with concrete and correct political analysis.

Re: "restore" the United States, why? The US is a genocidal empire currently help genocide Palestinians and enabling the prelude to the Armenian Genocide 2.0. We should seek justice, not a "return". The past and the status quo of the US are not goid things, the narrative that they were/are requires white supremacist thinking.

And I was noting that the USSR had a tendency to shift their ethnic populations around to wipe out (still don't understand how you took that term to mean anything other than killing local populations, it's "wipe out" as in "erase")

You still don't understand the difference between forced migration and mass killing? The latter can be a consequence of the former but it is not always. If you need me to explain the difference between moving to a different location versus dying I think there are even deeper issues in conceptualization that are preventing communication, here.

other local ethnic populations.

In the period of this graph? Like I've already suggested twice, tell me more about Latvia from the 1970s and on. I know the factual history re: migration in Latvia and what you are suggesting is, to put it simply, bullshit. This may be why I didn't understand your reference to something that didn't happen there - except by the Nazis, who got their shit kicked in by the Soviets, a fact for which reactionary Latvian nationalists never forgave them.

This is why you should try clearly stating your point. We are 4-5 commrnts deep and I guess you don't really have one outside of an ahistorical reference with no relevance to the graphic.

We saw the numbers increase until the USSR splintered and then fall off because there was no longer a system to support that shifting of ethnic populations.

Here you are conflating ethnic Russians living in Latvia and ethnic cleansing. This is not a rational point and is again why you should try explicitly stating your ideas. You might notice that they do not make sense if you actually did so. You kind of already know this, right? It's why you don't respond to 90% of the things I say to you. I'm not stupid or obtuse, I am giving you opportunities to gracefully bail on what you might be implying with incomplete thoughts.

This crowd should know about it unless they only believe in or talk about the beneficial parts of communism and ignore the ugly parts that regularly get implemented.

I keep asking you to specifically describe Latvian migration and just state your point clearly and you keep chickening out and trying to ignore those requests along with most of whay I say. Now you are trying to pretend I'm avoiding the reality of those things. I'm just waiting on you, bud.

The NYPD's total budget is over $10 billion. They pull from other line items for things like buildings and benefits.

The NYPD budget would make it something like the third largest military if compared to countries' military budgets. The NYPD's main purpose is to protect capital which, per "stop and frisk" and similarly racist policies, are intended to harass minority groups. If there is a safety issue where minutes matter, they are only hours away. If a shop window gets broken they'll be there immediately.

I notice you're not going after OP for his vague title with picture, but I'm fair game.

OP is just noting that "under communism" the population was increasing and aftetwards it was decreasing. And making a joke about some anticommunist orgs. Easy to understand for the intended audience. Happy to explain more if you don't understand.

To make it abundantly clear (which you can infer from the other chart posted in the thread), the population change was mostly non-Latvians entering before the USSR splintered and leaving afterwards.

Yes someone posted a graph from Wikipedia. It refers to ethnicity. And it does not discriminate between entering, leaving, or having children / dying, though a lot is likely migration.

This was your point? It seems like a pointless fact.

I made a reference to habits in that region of wiping out locals and replacing them with ethnic "russians" to rebut the vague sarcastic "the decline was after the USSR splintered so communism=good" title.

Oh? Is that what the graphs are showing? Tell me about the ethnic cleansing of Latvians from 1970-1990.

Or were you saying something that has nothing to do with either graphic? Are you confused about timelines or are you confused about events? It's one or the other.

Was that clear enough?

Well I still don't see any coherent point so I'm going to go with no. You also ignored everything I said in my reply. So I think you should consider working on your communication skills.

Do you believe an invasion is well-supported by very slow, large, connected barges? Militarily this would only make sense for slightly more efficiently supplying an occupation.

I clearly had "moved populations around to wipe out ethnic locals" in my first post.

Forced migration is not the same as killing. Are you trying to say it is? Was that what everyone was supposed to automatically understand as part of your still instated point?

I'm sorry if you can't understand that to mean that USSR was doing a genocide (killing) a lot of the enthic minorities and replacing them with their main ethnic group.

So is that your point? You see a graph of Estonian population decline starting around the fall of the USSR and say it has something to do with the USSR killing ethnic minorities and replacing them? First, that was opaque. Second, tell me those that happened around 1990, O Great Sleuth.

It's one reason why Russia today keeps saying that countries adjacent to them (who were former USSR like Ukraine) are ethnically Russians and belong as part of the Russian state.

It actually is not. And the USSR itself was pivotal in the creation of the Ukrainian identity and republic, per Lenin's advocacy for semi-autonomous member states for, get this, ethnic minorities. Eastern Ukraine has had ethnic Russians (previously termed things like Muscovites or Cissacks depending on how uou wsnt to split hairs) for hundreds of years, primarily moving there after proto-Russia pushed out Nogais. In terms of displacing ethnic Ukrainians, this primarily occurred by anticommunist Poland during the civil war following the October Revolution where surrounding powers invaded the former Russian Empire. Poland took large regions to their East and South and forced Ukrainians out of acquired lands. This contributed to Ukrainian nationalist revanchism that ended up rhetorically fueling Banderites, who killed masses of ethnic Poles when given the chance - which was ended by the Soviets. Incidentally, modern Estonia supports modern Banderites.

So tell me more about your theory of what happened around 1990.

Kindly pick up some reading comprehension.

Oh I have no trouble with this. You just speak like a Redditor, expecting people to fill in your vague emotional content with their own context. Please do some self-criticism in this regard. Note that we are 3 comments in and you have yet to clearly make a point about what this has to do with OP's graph.

What would I be projecting, exactly?

And I'm not being obtuse, their point is actually unclear aside from snark and a vague allusion. Re-read OP and tell me what specific events in Estonia around 1990 they might be referring to. Have fun trying to figure it out.

You think my replies were walls of text?

Have you ever read... one page of one book?

I think you mean something different from this, but there were actual Jewish Nazis during the (thankfully short-lived) Third Reich. And the Zionists that act like Nazis today sometimes consider themselves Jewish, though I question the compatibility of ethnic cleansing settler colonialism and Judaism.

My point was to ask for additional specific data that concerns population size/dynamics. Then I brought up a historical USSR/Russian empir

That's not a poinyt. It is a question. But it seems like you wanted to use the question to make a point. Something negative.

But I'm not going to try and pull teeth to get you to be straightforward.

Then I brought up a historical USSR/Russian empire move where they killed an ethnic minority population in a region and moved in "ethnic russians" to replace them for better comrade-ing.

You also framed this as a question, actually. And you didn't say anything about killing. You are also being vague.

So clearly you do have something to say. But something is keeping you from just plainly stating your point. I think it's the snarky Redditor in your brain that has made you forget how to communicate with other people.

Kill the Redditor in your brain. It gives people second hand embarrassment.

I recommend that you simply state your position. I'm sure you think your point is obvious, but it really is not.

The classic case of "resisting arrest" by involuntarily responding to the violence done to you by cops. If a cop became a doctor they'd call your knee reflex test an assault on their person.

Anti-environmentalist state actions are an extension of red scare actions. The bridge between them was policies against "terrorists", i.e. people who use the weapons of poor people and not jets and aircraft carriers. Environmentalist organizations, from the state perspective, are now "environmental terrorists" when they obstruct or destroy property in addition to civil lawsuits intended to bankrupt them that have an absurdly easy path moving forward. The case of Steven Donzinger is an example of this, where Chevron lost a large civil case and decided to openly punish the lawyer who represented poor Ecuadorians that had been impacted. The court system was nakedly abused (usually they give themselves more cover and false pretenses) to harass and punish Donzinger by a series or judges beholden to industry and capital.

"Domestic terrorism" is also applied to protesters for black lives and Palestine and will increasingly be used to do so. The intent is to crush left organizing and to conflate private property and humsn life. You may already recognize this latter tendency when a protest that breaks windows is deemed violent, as if the windows have families and needed to visit a hospital to feel better. Meanwhile, police or jailer or proud boy violence against the protestors is described in neutral cop speak, seemingly without agency or human impact.

For academia I recommend having an IT cost center responsible for the hosting infrastructure, namely virtualization. Then let people have VPSes (or similar) as needed to run docker-based services. This makes it easier to handle network and security concerns. Most large universities already offer something like this to students and faculty.

Why do you want to host them? Usually the difficult parts are necessary because they're needed to have the level of control, security, and privacy that is the reason a person is self-hosting in the first place. And there are not enough simple standards for running software securely so you do need to learn some nerd stuff to do it right - but no so much that it is impossible for a beginner.

The US is a white supremacist, xenophobic state. Those in power actively promote this, they think it is good to give "Israel" (brown) baby killing missiles. "Israel" is their "friend", you see, just like apartheid South Africa, but far more useful for destroying "enemies" (brown children in other countries) due to its location.

The US itself was founded on settler colonial genocide and chattel slavery. The only reckoning it has evet had about this was its civil war, but this process was left incomplete. It retains most of its settler culture.

Organizing a socialist movement doesn't happen online.

Why are you still replying when you have nothing to say? Just be honest and run. I'll help you: I'll just ignore your next reply.

PS it's, "touch grass".

This is already in blue cities they just use it against BLM and pro-Palestine organizers.