bingo. there are two ways to go about it: saving everyone via drastic action or genocide. and we know that the capitalist class are choosing genocide everytime
bingo. there are two ways to go about it: saving everyone via drastic action or genocide. and we know that the capitalist class are choosing genocide everytime
okay but you don't see how they are connected
because they are connected
one will lead to the other
Oh as an environmentalist I know what you speak.
Climate refugees and dire straights will lead to ever more increasingly violent and authoritarian responses, fascist as well.
I believe we can and will fight it here.
yes but also some of fundamental dynamics fueling the international market economy will break down
you can't ignore this part
No one said winning that fight is going to be easy.
We survived pre globalization before. It'll shock the system for sure of that I don't disagree.
not since the dark ages dude
extractive colonial economies are the foundation of capitalism
this is what i mean in terms of structural economics
Oh I know.
But we can survive it. Will capitalism survive it? I cannot say. Hence me hedging my bets!
okay good luck with that faith in your fellow americans
maybe you'll be right, i hope so but i doubt it
i'm done for tonight
Well to me this sounds like we should just give up!
But alas have a good night.
Don't see how capitalism survives its most valuable sources - colonized countries plundered for resources - being rendered uninhabitable by climate change.
Coltan is an ore used to develop electronics for most of our modern technology. Some of the biggest sources of Coltan are Columbia, Brazil, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. Guess what continents are the most fragile to climate change?
Capitalism does not function without exploitation. That goes for both laborers and the land.
Coltan is an ore used to develop electronics for most of our modern technology. Some of the biggest sources of Coltan are Columbia, Brazil, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. Guess what continents are the most fragile to climate change?
Capitalism does not function without exploitation. That goes for both laborers and the land.
How would socialism or any other economic system for that matter fix that problem?
Along with actively changing production to curb the affects of global warming, a socialist or more left leaning government would only make things to meet needs instead of overproduce things like we do now.
But how would that mitigate those resources being lost?
In this assumed scenario, where climate change has happened and we lost those things we'd still see a loss of society in some form. Even with socialism.
So here's the thing: capitalism creates vast amounts of excess of shit we don't need. iPhones, video game consoles, computers are cranked out in massive numbers, with arbitrary model updates that only come in because these companies want to create products that intentionally fail so consumers can buy more.
We don't need iPhone updates every 2-3 years, we don't need 3 different video game consoles, we don't need hundreds of different types of processing chips and computer builds. These things can be unified and built to last, but they intentionally aren't to create competition and incentivize more consumption and spending of money.
Already lost resources or ones we will lose? Well first, we could just give the things we've already produced to those that want those particular things and lessen production of said items. There is no preventing or stopping the loss of anything at this point, its just not going to happen.
Ultimately I think the takeaway is as socialists facing a climate crisis, the current standard of living can't continue. We can easily feed and shelter every human on Earth. But this bountiful excess of technology, wasteful farming (cattle etc.), personal travel vehicles like cars, so on and so forth, cannot go on. Life would radically change. A socialist society wouldn't be "everything is the same now but free and we don't have to work." We would have to radically reconceptualize society.
I think in this society we are refocused more on communal living and interaction. Less hours and hours spent alone in our rooms on our phones. A highly digital society connected via the internet would be incredibly important to maintain a socialist society for communication and whatnot, but we can't use it as a replacement for genuine human connection and growth.
I think in this society we are refocused more on communal living and interaction. Less hours and hours spent alone in our rooms on our phones. A highly digital society connected via the internet would be incredibly important to maintain a socialist society for communication and whatnot, but we can't use it as a replacement for genuine human connection and growth.
I suspect that mining outposts will become a thing in these regions, similar to research outposts in Antarctica.
OP
OP
I was gonna write a response to xenocide's post, but this more or less already sums up what I was thinking. The point of the CT example wasn't to say "let's do this", it was to demonstrate that human interactions and social formations change depending on the material conditions that they find themselves under. So when the material conditions changed, it's not a surprise that the CT changed - that's the point! - nor is it in some way a damning critique of the idea of socialism or communism. Rather, it only goes hand in hand with our thesis.
Capitalism is not some natural, ingrained process - it's a specific, built system that arose out of particular conditions. It will not last forever, and as conditions change, there is no reason that something else can't/won't take its place or that human society can't/won't change along with it when we've seen it happen before.
OP
OP
I don't think anyone sees Rogan as an ally. They see him as a useful idiot.
It was a gamble that didn't work. Probably would have been a better move for the general instead of the primaries.
Last edited:
they wanted to lock him in before he had the chance to recant
it's not like rogan is noted for his intellectual consistency
he has a huge audience who are getting virtually no leftist messaging
especially in the context of the bloomberg shit the whole rogan thing is such a pile of nothing.
it's not like rogan is noted for his intellectual consistency
he has a huge audience who are getting virtually no leftist messaging
especially in the context of the bloomberg shit the whole rogan thing is such a pile of nothing.
Remember when Charlamange endorsed Buttigieg and actually campaigned for him as some sort of black outreach and no one said a fucking thing?
This is probably been a topic that's been discussed a lot before, but how does socialism address why people vote conservative/for people such as Trump? The whole economic anxiety argument makes me feel uneasy, especially as a minority. It seems to mostly be a fundamental difference between leftism and liberalism. I think that I'm a leftist, but this argument in particular is hard to address. Do socialists think it is just because of racism,mostly because of "economic anxiety",a mix, or other reasons? Sorry that this question is a bit loaded/rambly.
it's a different kind of economic anxiety. you're average trump voter makes a decent living in a place with comparatively low cost of living
their culture and place in society is upheld by republicans
democrats have failed to offer them material solutions so they will take being screwed over in order to pick the people doing the screwing
honestly most lefties are more understanding of why people voted for trump
like i think it's stupid an no one should do it but at the same time i understand how for a person from a specific background it makes perfect sense without being an out and out white nationalist or something
trump isn't the first unqualified person to be elevated to high office because people don't give a shit about most of what the government does and just want to make people they hate miserable.
their culture and place in society is upheld by republicans
democrats have failed to offer them material solutions so they will take being screwed over in order to pick the people doing the screwing
honestly most lefties are more understanding of why people voted for trump
like i think it's stupid an no one should do it but at the same time i understand how for a person from a specific background it makes perfect sense without being an out and out white nationalist or something
trump isn't the first unqualified person to be elevated to high office because people don't give a shit about most of what the government does and just want to make people they hate miserable.
I don't understand self-proclaimed liberals who are rallying behind Biden knowing that:
1. He has well documented inappropriate behavior with touching and bordering on sexual misconduct, especially around children,
2. There is very strong evidence his mental capacity is fading beyond "he has a stutter." It's genuinely upsetting to watch him struggling to form complete sentences or erratically lashing out. This isn't appropriate behavior and it's wrong for someone like that to be gunning for the most powerful, stressful job on the planet. I don't like Biden as a politician, but it's wrong to be subjecting him to this. Straight up elder abuse. (For the record, if Bernie had another heart attack, I'd probably be saying he should drop out too.)
Is it just a cynical ploy to beat Trump and take back the Senate? I don't understand this or how anybody could be excited about a Biden Presidency or think he has good odds against Trump. If I was a moderate, I wouldn't think "fuck yeah, Joe," I'd be thinking "shit, this is our guy?" If it was 2016 Biden I'd feel totally different.
It's night and day. This feels like an insane joke, like an Eric Andre skit. I know other countries are looking at us and thinking we're insane (even more than usual) and they'd be right to.
The only reason I can justify voting for Biden is Supreme Court justices. That's it. I have no reason to believe he can even mentally survive four years of his first term. Cynically, you could argue this is the DNC's ploy, to put in a trojan horse VP and stuff his cabinet. Bernie has legitimate issues too as a candidate, but I don't know where this confidence in Biden comes from.
1. He has well documented inappropriate behavior with touching and bordering on sexual misconduct, especially around children,
2. There is very strong evidence his mental capacity is fading beyond "he has a stutter." It's genuinely upsetting to watch him struggling to form complete sentences or erratically lashing out. This isn't appropriate behavior and it's wrong for someone like that to be gunning for the most powerful, stressful job on the planet. I don't like Biden as a politician, but it's wrong to be subjecting him to this. Straight up elder abuse. (For the record, if Bernie had another heart attack, I'd probably be saying he should drop out too.)
Is it just a cynical ploy to beat Trump and take back the Senate? I don't understand this or how anybody could be excited about a Biden Presidency or think he has good odds against Trump. If I was a moderate, I wouldn't think "fuck yeah, Joe," I'd be thinking "shit, this is our guy?" If it was 2016 Biden I'd feel totally different.
It's night and day. This feels like an insane joke, like an Eric Andre skit. I know other countries are looking at us and thinking we're insane (even more than usual) and they'd be right to.
The only reason I can justify voting for Biden is Supreme Court justices. That's it. I have no reason to believe he can even mentally survive four years of his first term. Cynically, you could argue this is the DNC's ploy, to put in a trojan horse VP and stuff his cabinet. Bernie has legitimate issues too as a candidate, but I don't know where this confidence in Biden comes from.
I am an immigrant minority. Undocumented for over a decade. I don't tolerate bigotry on a personal level, I love a good Nazi punching video as any other, and I also understand that there are power structures putting downward pressures on people that makes them more likely to lash out at scapegoats (blacks, gays, latines, ...) - especially when directed by someone with the veneer of authority that comes from high office (Trump). Maybe some of that was already there, no doubt, but the exploitation prerogative of capital makes it an interest to agitate these sentiments.
I still want to ease the pressures put on their demographic on a class basis, not because I wanna help racist, not because I revere the white working class above others, but out of an interest in what I think of as fascist/white supremacy counter proliferation. Immiseration is a recruitment tool of authoritarians and I wanna take that away by dismantling the oppressive systems by which they achieve that through.
Last edited:
Opinion | How Working-Class Life Is Killing Americans, in Charts (Published 2020)
It’s not just older Americans dying of “despair.”
But it's just about beating Trump, right?
It's from a new book:
"Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism"
The gloating amongst liberals is really becoming unbearable. Scared to post any responses in PoliEra because it feels like everyone is really sensitive about criticism while perfectly willing to gloat about how it would be a tragedy to have to pay a bit out of pocket when they make +$400k a year.
So I'll post here. I'm curious as to whether you guys think that on ST it was turnout from people who would normally show up in the GE but not to the primaries who were only motivated to get to the primary polls this time to stop Bernie.
The demographics Biden brought out aren't exactly ones that fail to show up in the general, and I just don't think there are tons of older african americans in the south or suburban women who weren't already voting in the GE while I do think plenty of them might not have cared enough before to vote in the primaries.
So I'll post here. I'm curious as to whether you guys think that on ST it was turnout from people who would normally show up in the GE but not to the primaries who were only motivated to get to the primary polls this time to stop Bernie.
The demographics Biden brought out aren't exactly ones that fail to show up in the general, and I just don't think there are tons of older african americans in the south or suburban women who weren't already voting in the GE while I do think plenty of them might not have cared enough before to vote in the primaries.
at the end of the day those people have been placed in an environment where powerful people are trying very hard to get their constituencies to not trust bernie
it has very little to do with any one incident
it has very little to do with any one incident
My question was more one regarding whether or not we can say Biden has shown evidence he can boost turnout
My understanding is that Bidan notoriously runs a bad campaign. We saw him win states on ST that he didn't even campaign in.
So if he does manage to boost turnout in the GE, it likely wont be because of anything he actually does.
These were my thoughts. Hillary was électoral poison, though - it's been depressing to see her come back and to see her stans come out. I think I'd puke if she got a post in a biden administration
Hillary was certainly a controversial figure but she definitely had an energized fanbase that supported her and believed her.
I'm not so sure Biden does. He's less controversial but I just don't get the feeling people are going to be excited about him in a GE. Hillary had the "first woman President" novelty. And the coverage of a sundowning Biden over a general election period will be brutal. That's not factoring in that Trump is a more daunting electoral challenge in 2020 than he was in 2016. His base and party are fully behind him. Biden will have anemic youth support and, while I think Bernie Or Busters were a minor, non-significant portion of people in 2016, I think there is a bigger chance they could swing this election. I wouldn't be shocked if at least 40% of Bernie's base doesn't show up for Biden.
I really don't think "I'm not Trump" is going to win this election.
I'm not so sure Biden does. He's less controversial but I just don't get the feeling people are going to be excited about him in a GE. Hillary had the "first woman President" novelty. And the coverage of a sundowning Biden over a general election period will be brutal. That's not factoring in that Trump is a more daunting electoral challenge in 2020 than he was in 2016. His base and party are fully behind him. Biden will have anemic youth support and, while I think Bernie Or Busters were a minor, non-significant portion of people in 2016, I think there is a bigger chance they could swing this election. I wouldn't be shocked if at least 40% of Bernie's base doesn't show up for Biden.
I really don't think "I'm not Trump" is going to win this election.
Last edited:
I'm not a Biden person at all, but I do think he will have a strong challenge to Trump.
I can't call anything now--too early.
Sadly, these ideas have a strong opposition. Personally, I think stuff like not bankrupting yourself because you need medical care is reasonable, but it's verboten to the corporate Dems and the GOP.
Last edited:
i hope it isn't that high. I feel incredibly dejected and don't look forward to the needless harping on of centrists to vote blue no matter who, but I will vote for the moron begrudgingly. I don't blame others for not doing so and completely understand it, though - I've considered the same.
Like I said, I would only vote for Supreme Court justices. I'm really not convinced Biden can even make it through a four year term.
His turnout. He seems to have got a lot turnout with key demographics--women, suburban voters, African Americans. This is the same coalition that helps give the Dems the 2018 victories.
If you said Thought Slime was an anarchist earlier, I would have already started watching!