OurToothbrush

Yeah, people need to stop condemning plaestinians for resisting genocide.

Oh this is about voting lol.

You know, this shit is frustrating. Imagine every day everyone has to vote whether 10 people in lets say a group of 30 will be hit with a bat 4 times or 5 times, and everyone else gets hit once.

And you talk to the other people, and say "we have to stop these people hitting us with bats or we're all going to die" and they respond with "but you're going to vote for those people to be hit four times, right? Getting hit 5 times is much worse! We have to devote all our time and effort to making sure the 4 times option wins!" And of course they're one of the people who only gets hit once either way.

They provide the materials, the tools and machinery, the designs that are being made (assuming some sort of manufacturing company for this example).

Other workers made the materials, the tools, the machinery, and the designs. If the owner did they occupy a class position as a worker and owner.

They also carry the risk (unless of course they are a corporation, the ridiculous entity created to reap the advantages of personhood while avoiding all its responsibilities and drawbacks).

The risk that they might be a worker if their venture fails.

You've misread the meme. It is claiming that

the majority of your labor value is stolen by the same company paying you the crumbs

Please attach the article

Please attach the article

Please attach the article

When I help my sister pay her rent a small business owner isn’t being evicted. Economics aren’t zero sum.

Can you prevent a landlord from evicting a single mom, when that landlord is willing to use violence to do it, without using violence? Is the idea just "we will pay them all off, using money we definitely have in order to do it?

I think ideas like collective ownership and mutual aid have power without challenging the ruling class.

Then, bluntly, you are ignorant of history. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying you need to actually learn about this stuff before trying to come up with a belief system about it.

Instead we beg daddy to give us more rations.

I dont know what you mean here

I don’t really have all the answers. I know what I consider ethical and try to work within that, but I’m no genius.

You need to consider the impact of your actions in morality, which means understanding what the outcomes of actions have been historically.

know it’s easy to say your answer is violence and we’ll sort it out later, but there’re a lot of missing steps there

That would be an easy and incorrect way of describing my beliefs, yes.

I don’t think there’s a lot of difference between the class consciousness necessary to achieve a gradualist result vs revolution. Gradualism has time to show people the benefit without lining them up against the wall, tho.

I think you haven't thought about the material implications of this. Giving white supremacists and landlords and capitalists time to come around isnt nonviolent, it is permitting violence to continue for a while because you don't want to commit violence on the people doing the violence. It is a statement that you dont want to help the oppressed if it is at the expense of the oppressor.

We also live in a world that has a habit of fucking up collectivism. Trade is technology and in a free society we can test the tech and find what works instead of fucking shit up with bullets and famine

Honestly, I think you've bought into a capitalist framing on the history of transitional states. The USSR had famines during: a bloody Civil War, collectivization, and right after ww2. It notably did not have any periodic famines that the Russian empire previously had. Communist China had a famine after the Civil War before relations were normalized. They notably ended the periodic famines, especially along the yellow river.

They don’t have to submit? We do things the right way and don’t deal with those cunts

Okay but they have the means of survival right now. Not seizing them means people will die while you develop your own.

Also, while developing your own, the movement is vulnerable to getting crushed by them. They historically haven't had any compunctions with killing millions to protect themselves from communism.

As a gradualist, though, I think we can build up our communities while removing the regulations that enable corporations to operate the way they do while staying profitable.

How though? Do you think the capitalist state is going to just let you mess with its bosses?

Regardless, I think we, as a society, should be there with the bread. It shouldn’t be an issue we have to face.

But you don't think we should use violence to enforce the idea, so how do you enforce the idea in the transition when former small business tyrants chafe at the idea of sharing? What if they don't submit to nonviolent methods of control?

I consider freedom of the press to just be freedom of speech, which we all have.

The thing is we don't. There is no such thing as free speech, any speech that meaningfully threatens the government will be cracked down on. See Fred Hampton. Free speech is a legal fiction in our country.

But my point is that the limited bourgeois privileges you get don't matter if you're starving on the street. You can't meaningfully have those privileges without economic security.

As for the homeless chap, it depends on their situation. I’d live in a community that would try to help them. I think we’re ethically obligated to help people in need as best we can, but I’m not comfortable using violence to force you to help them.

So it is more violent to take food from a grocery store because that hurts the owners bottom line than it is to prevent a starving man from taking bread from a grocery store by kicking his ass and throwing him in a box? Is that your perspective on this issue?

Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.

Economics is politics. The two are intertwined in every practical regard.

To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.

This is ahistorical. Colonialism does not require consensus or respect for individual rights and is a central feature of any capitalist system that is successful enough.

If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.

Oh yeah, socialists have done some horrible things. They pale in scale to the crimes of capitalism. The British empire, the nazi empire, the American empire. Socialism is a less violent system but that doesn't mean that violence stops.

I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.

If you support capitalism you literally support an informal caste system where a small caste owns the collective accumlated fruits of labor of the whole human race stretching back to the start of agriculture, where any attempt to change the state of affairs that has any chance of success gets jakarta methoded. That is much more authoritarian than a red terror.

I also don’t really care what the economic system looks like, so long as human rights are recognized.

What about human economic rights? What use does a homeless starving person have for the freedom of press?