galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

Define genocide then detail with trustworthy sources why this meets it.

I'm tired of people pontificating that this is genocide who cannot even define what genocide is. The other side are those that can define genocide but fully trust Hamas sources while distrusting Western sources.

... You dolt

Political archives where there is an incentive to cover up your own actions and lie about production is not an inherently trustworthy source. There were no third party validation of the narratives that corroborate them but plenty that poke holes in them. The reason why the West seemed so untrustworthy relative to the East at the time was due to a relatively free press. Amazing how checks on power degrade trust in one faction but also keep it relatively honest.

Sorry, I missed the part where they were planning production and redistributing the returns. I guess there's still work to be done to complete control. I'm not sure why you think this would be better. Please address this point. You are bouncing around it. I don't care about Israel in this discussion.

This is a conversation on left economics. Gaza has literally nothing to do with it except as a case study in power. You brought it up. You are the one projecting. I'm bringing us back on topic.

When you place economic decisions from a profit driven one into the hands of the politician, you get just as perverse incentives. What's even worse is that the government cannot fail so the system just gets progressively worse until the entire system collapses. I'm good with a liberal system as is with some moderate reforms to account for externalities.

I'm perfectly happy not spending 90% of my time and energy feeding my family. You may think that would be a better life but industrial farming does have a lot of benefits, through either command or liberal economics. It's there that the liberal system shines bright as a command economy requires local production to motivate workers for the above reasons.

It appears to me that Israel did not have full economic power over the Gaza strip like they would under a command economy and the elected government of Hamas used that to prepare to kill over a thousand civilians in Israel. To bad they weren't authoritarian like you would prefer and they could fully stamp out the Arabs in the region. Funny how it goes both ways sometimes.

Imagine if Israel completely controlled the means of production over Palestine as would be your preferred system. Would that make the genocide less effective? We wouldn't even be talking about it in the current tense regardless of how taken you are by the Hamas claims since 2006.

If you believe the reports coming out of the Hamas aligned side, Israel has not once hit a legitimate military target. They were all civilians. Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday? You know, the one with all the apartment buildings where Hamas leadership suspiciously died at the exact same time. That was all civilians.

Arab states in the immediate vicinity cannot fathom that Israel could be any more trustworthy than their own governments despite consistency on the Israeli side. To be honest, after having seen how it works myself, I don't believe anything coming out of that region but those channels coming out of the Israeli state itself. I do not understand why people take any of the reports of the Hamas or aligned organizations at face value but they do.

State or no state, Hamas was legitimately elected by the people of Palestine. They committed a horrendous attack against Israel justifying a defensive war. War is fucking ugly. There's no way around it without risking your own forces. This is not genocide as they are targeting military targets despite the narrative. Collateral damage is not inherently a war crime and people should learn what that means. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. White phosphorous is only a war crime if they are signatory to the treaty banning its use which they are not nor are the United States or Russia.

The is a massive information war going on right now trying to pull public opinion to one side or the other and almost nothing can truly be trusted unless it comes from a primary source and even then they should be assessed for trustworthiness based on evidence and past performance.

This is also intended to take our attention away from Russia and Ukraine; just saying.

Yes, take out the checks on power inherent within private corporatism and you get full on communism. It's not better. Add in racism and you make genocide extremely efficient as the state controls all resources.

I don't think you realize how quickly things devolved into starvation under the Soviet Union or early CCP. They then very quickly shifted to centralized planning. This isn't a question of scale or perception. It was immediate and required a change very quickly.

This is exactly why the dismantling of capitalism in a post authoritarian world has so far always resulted in starvation. You have no sufficient answer to this question that addresses actual human behavior. It inevitably results in forced labor and oppression in the name of humanity.

It was what they were trying to do because the basis of communism is the commune. The USSR originally started out as a decentralized organization of communes and it did not work at scale.

What you describe as wanting literally exists in western society. There are communes all over and they fail all the time or simply survive chugging along as is. Maybe you should go live on one and see if you like it. I mean that as sincerely as possible.

The entire first two paragraphs of your statement is exactly what the CCP and USSR attempted to set up but it failed miserably due to efficiency issues, They then consolidated in to sudo fascism. How many attempts do you need to see that people in aggregate cannot form that level of trust in society or social engagement? The majority of people do not even use their power in the current West because they do not care and are happy with the status quo.

Anarchism does not provide robust power to protect minorities so it does not matter if it does not allow discrimination, it cannot prevent it. The same level of educational and social change that you would propose under an anarchist system would solve it in any other system. There are no solid controls in place to counteract tribalism. This is actually one of my strongest held beliefs on the topic having worked in this area on the government and private sector sides.

The issue with not allowing dissent is that anarchists have never been able to force their system on society if it was not wrapped in communism. It very quickly collapses into an authoritarian regime or reversion to the status quo having hurt a lot of people in the revolution.

Don't get me wrong, there are aspects of anarchism that do work within systems of power. Decentralization of power tends to provide a check on centralized power such as in a federal system. Private contracts (anarcho-capitalism) between people can be extremely efficient provided they are not the only form of sustenance for people. Rights backed by the higher power with no economic perverse incentives is an extremely effective form of equality and to a certain extent equity. Nonprofits provide an opportunity for people to actually support others and if we were all ready to be equal members in an anarchist society, it is all you would need and capitalism would not matter. You cannot claim that it is the owners of capital that are preventing it because they would be there in any other system, except with the power of the state or no state to stop them. If you solve them, you solve capitalism without any transition to a new system.

I talk this a lot with folks involved in higher education that conform to these ideals which is why I speak to your narratives instead of some bastardized version skewed by ignorance in a nationalist upbringing. People have not been taught what fascists, socialists, and/or anarchists actually believe so they have also forgotten the counter-narratives to them. They are susceptible to highly effective propaganda that works. Anarchists are tools used to degrade liberal democracies by fascist powers because it works. It is a playbook used countless times in the 20th century and forgotten because a liberal democracy won the so-called final war. Germany's release of Lenin successfully knocked Russia out of the First World War and it is in Russia's playbook right now to cause internal tensions in the West with political instability. A success on that front would not lead to a happy world but instead the next period of conflict and great power competition between totalitarian systems out of a wartime necessity just as in the great war.

How do you define a system where decisions are made decentrally at a communal level and the owners of capital are the workers? Any serious study of early attempts at economic decentralization of the early Soviet and CCP systems should result in the conclusion that it was effectively an attempt at economic anarchy by its very definition. Just because it is not your prefered anarchy does not mean it was not anarchy.

Capitalism is compatible with kindness and, in fact, works better with it. Capitalism also allows for anarchist structures. Just because people do not throw resources at your system does not mean that it is not allowed. Any system that refuses to allow capitalist structures is one that does not allow dissent. Any anarchist system that does allow for capitalism bleeds skilled labor and capital over time. Any education system that promotes kindness and humanity is just as effective at bettering a capitalist system as it would be an anarchist one but good luck controlling the educational system with anarchist structures. We cannot even keep religious dogma out of our current ones with the strongest and most rigid structures.

Economics is the study of how best to allocate the resources within society. Anarchism does not allow for any of the economic structures that allow for resource allocation at scale. A command economy can but is inefficient the more centralized it is. Capitalism can but it is less human the larger it is. If you take out the scale of a command economy, people starve. If you make capitalist systems smaller, they become more human. There is a clearly preferred system which is smaller capitalism. That is my answer to you on a system that has all that.

Beyond the simple answer, it requires a few other things as a roadmap to get there (which Anarchism does not have in any form beyond attempts at general strikes and generally degrading the system in the hope that fascism would not be the natural response)

1. Promoting small businesses at the local and contractual level (Such as government requiring small business partnerships with large firms and providers)
2. Education on ethics and diversity
3. Robust public spaces with a sense of place supporting small communities (even within large cities)
4. Promotion of equity at the lowest levels
5. Increased mobility to increase labor and purchasing power over monopoly labor
6. More robust controls on anticompetitive business behavior beyond simple monopoly definitions
7. Promotion of nonprofits and other alternative corporate structures in certain industries

All of the above are interlinked and require each other to be most effective. All of them can be done in your community right now and don't require interjection by a higher government than your local town/city.

It honestly sounds to me like you do not understand capitalism if you think there is not a human element that comes into play. Reducing suffering enables better human interaction, excess kindness, leisure time, friendliness, and absolutely requires tolerance and acceptance. An efficient system is not one that allows for discrimination based on any human factors and that would be present in any system. Tribalism is in our nature. You see it in class with how people sit and between groups when they are at odds for goals. The only thing that can affect it is education and awareness. Only after that can we talk about resourcing solutions. It sounds to me like you just want a kinder world. I recommend finding a place that supports that in your life. They do exist and it requires compassion and probably moving on your part to find them. No one is going to force it on you.

All societies have ended due to a combination of internal and outside factors. That is the test of a society. To claim that anarchist societies do not have internal issues is intellectually dishonest. All capitalist societies that have failed have done so due to outside factors. So too have all monarchist and communist if the true believers are to be listened to. When the USSR and the CCP started it was economically anarchist so I do not accept the claim that all anarchist systems ended due to outside factors. They also naturally consolidate.

The key difference is how much suffering is caused along the way. Anarchist society ascends into fascism so easily because it already controls the resources and is a single-party system that does not allow dissent. All the elements are there minus the natural rhetoric and for people to vote themselves a better position (tyranny of the majority). You cannot stop that. It is going to happen because it is human nature.

I honestly don't expect to change your mind in this conversation. That's not how it works. I was once a radical thinker. I do hope that I've instilled some nuggets of thought that eventually turn into a worldview that is less likely to cause harm. Very few radicals that actually implement change survive it and they tend to cause a lot of pain along the way. The rest end up in teaching.

Anarchism does absolutely nothing to oppose oppressive systems of power but hopes and dreams. Good luck changing people's minds when communications are restricted in non-liberal societies. Your core tenants are that you reject the power structures required to defend against them. The only difference between you and the original communist revolutions is that you reject the soviets that allowed them to organize a revolution and consolidate power.

This is not the first time I have been sent that source. Your source only proves that it can work in addition to existing power structures or at a smaller scale. If you cannot convince the majority to shift, a couple people are not going to lead a general strike which is commonly held to be a requirement for societal change towards anarchism. You are not arguing the actual ideology of anarchism.

There's so much that anarchism fails at but ultimately its inability to sustain itself as an ideology means that it will always fail, regardless of if it could work at scale(It cannot) Thus, you are only hurting people with attempts at radical change because the only societies that allow it are liberal ones. What naturally results is opposition in the forms of fascism or a shift to actual communism and oppression. All this while less liberal societies take advantage of free peoples. It is either an unethical ideology or you are proposing it with malicious intent.

Here's a pretty good source on it. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27026893?typeAccessWorkflow=login

The examples I mentioned were minorities within their current societies. Socialism didn't prevent Stalin from banning abortion in 1939. Socialism is not inherently better for women's rights. It does provide more state power which means changes, good and bad can be more thoroughly implemented. This sometimes results in more thoroughly implemented social policy but often results in more effective genocide or no recourse for the oppressed at all.

What happens when the governing core says no? For this system to work, you need an almost perfect level of education and reprogramming. That same level of education and reprogramming would also theoretically solve all problems in the current system and power structure. You have the same power to help people now as you magically would under your proposed system. You just refuse to play by the same rules because you think they are rigged against you when they aren't. You just refuse to play.