this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
1610 points (97.6% liked)
Political Memes
9176 readers
2894 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
At the risk of sounding like a class reductionist (I'm not), even things like racism and LGBTphobia are exacerbated by this, because the only reason we don't just eat those ten guys is we're always hating each other. The reason there's so much racism in the US, for example, has a lot to do with slavery -- and guess who benefitted from slavery? Guess who benefitted from the genocide against Native Americans? Who benefits most from calling refugees and undocumented workers "illegal immigrants"?
It's not me. If you're reading this, it's probably not you. It hurts us. It hurts our communities, while these ten people keep brainwashing us into actually defending them and their system while hating each other.
(Ok now I'm going to have my coffee, and I wish to the gods that I could disable inbox notifications after posting this.)
That hate propaganda is, in my opinion, more continually perpetuated by them, and in some cases created by them, because it offers, as you say, and I agree, a distraction from the pure evil they are for this planet and all life on it. The super villains have convinced us they're not the villains. Where's superman when you need him.
Probably working for a billionaire.
I am very much a class reductionist. Or a class-first leftist, as I prefer to call it. It is absolutely the most important issue, by a colossal margin.
Exactly it’s not our fault for fighting against bigoted poor people, it’s bigots fault for being swayed to fight poor people and not join us against the rich
Yes, I fully agree. Some people act like we need to tolerate bigotry for the sake of unity, which is absurd. That's why I often lead by saying I am not a class reductionist.
Seriously, why does Lenny not have the ability to disable notifications on posts?
I guess to encourage engagement, but it honestly has the opposite effect for me since it makes me squint at my inbox while hitting read all so I don't have to see the debatelords and their hot takes lol
Try to mention that the majority of landlords who go around fixing shit all day are struggling just as much you will get you hung around here.
Mention that the uberrich are the ones behind those firms buying up houses and they want you blaming that 70 year old still fixing shit instead of them.
People are blind to so much shit sometimes and the pendulum swing in other directions like ACAB suddenly being pushed by a bunch of people who couldn't speak English is the cherry on top to realizing so many people on the left are just as easily swayed as the people being grifted the right.
E: I'd like to see what people think are acceptable amounts of property ownership. Each person gets to own a single property? So I can own two properties and rent one if me and my partner each own, right? I wonder how far housing Co-ops can work.
Anyone in a committed relationship should be able to rent a single property. Nothing guarantees that we won't break up, so they will need to keep something just in case. It's also emergency funds for if we lose everything in the stock and people realize the Stock Market doesn't work without the very thing people thing are arguing against. Unsustainable capitalism. What else do people do then? Go full Ron Swanson and put it all into shiny metal and bury it lol?
Until people start unionizing to the point where people don't require their work to put into their retirement and get paid enough to actually save so they can't generate money from hoarding, then you'll need stock. You'll need diverse portfolios which include property ownership.
Landlords are not a special case. If you don't like your job you can quit. Sell the property if it is such a burden.
That's the point, they often can't because unlike you and the other people putting money into the magic money making machine which requires unsustainable growth based GDP to work, aka the stock market, they put theirs into equity.
Selling 1-2 houses for $150,000 isn't going to let them retire lol. They also bought houses for generational income so they can gift them to their children or grandchildren.
And just like the reactionary fun both of you are going with, you pretend like it's still not a class issue lol.
They're still part of the rentier class, let's not start sucking their dicks too hard because they're petit. They have a contradictory class position, but the fear of returning to the proletariat makes them the worst exploiters of the working class. You see the same thing from small producers under market pressure from supermarkets. Up yo analysis bro.
Nah, this ain't it, chief. They're not struggling like me, and they're exploiting a resource that should be a basic human right for profit. For every landlord who's tRyInG tO pAy MoM's NuRsInG hOmE fEeS, there are multiple tenants who can't because they're being sucked dry by these vampires.
People can fix shit without exploiting housing.
Edit: YIKES I just saw your username. Blocked, blocked, BLOCKED! Holy fucking shit!
You keep YIKES-ing that hard, you're going to give yourself a hernia. It's just a username.
As I've said, the death of nuance lol.
You're welcome to google the name and find out blankets with smallpox was never a thing though!
E: You're also welcome to read any number of my well sourced comments or discussions about landlords and class warfare elsewhere.
Yes indeed. I have multiple references to that one instance at Fort Pitt in my thread which historians believe to be bullshit. To be clear, this is the one verified attempt we can point to since dude replaced a couple of blankets and a scarf later which came from the smallpox ward. As you said, there's no possibility he was able to spread it that way. It's just not how smallpox works. Any smallpox already in the native population was due to contracting it conventionally exacerbated by the closeness of combat in warfare.
Blankets with smallpox was never a thing that decimated swaths of natives. Smallpox was able to do that all on it's own. People weren't handing them out left and right trying to kill natives. The US government did that all on their own through widespread genocide and cultural erasure.
Blankets with smallpox, was never a thing to deserve it's cult childish joking status like everyone likes to pretend it did. People repeat it because it sounds plausible and it's essentially a historical ear worm.
Settlers weren't handing them out trying to kill people. The US government didn't have a policy to use them to trick natives. None of it was a thing.
E: Clarity.
I scanned your links and there was refutation of Churchill's claim about Plains indians and blankets but there was no refutation of Pitt. Your links only showed corroborating evidence that Pitt happened.
The attempt was made, that's verified. The actual ability to give someone smallpox via blankets is bullshit. I might have made that more clear. Apologies.
Huh? My own post? Yeah, it reads the same to me. It's the one verified instance that scientists believed is almost entirely made up. You cannot give people smallpox with blankets. It is the ONE verified instance of a dude trying to give natives smallpox from blankets that came from a smallpox ward.
Blankets with smallpox is not a widespread thing. It's not even a rare thing. It was a literal one time thing attempted by a US Officer that didn't work because that's not how smallpox works. It's bullshit. Straight up. The sauce is literally directly below it.
E: Edited both for clarity though. You aren't the first to confuse that. Thanks.
For fixing shit, there are plumbers and electricians and carpenters. They are workers.
Landlord earns money not from fixing, but from renting out a house first and foremost. And this is a passive income, or, to put otherwise, exploiting a resource and dragging money from something that doesn't produce anything for society.
This is very class reductionist. Rich people are still hurt by bigotry, especially celebrities. Not every rich person is a cis, hetero, white, man.
These issues predate capitalism. Not making full use of minorities and oppressed people actually hurts the capitalist economy especially in terms of innovation. It would be much more efficient for the rich if everyone were giving their best.
These divisions are far from the only reason people don't turn on the rich. People just don't support socialism and I can see why. Things like the USSR and China are what happened when marxism was tried. We need to come up with better economic and political systems that actually work if we want to get anywhere. We then need to remove the stains these previous systems caused. I don't think that's gonna happen with the current crop of leftists as they are idealists still using 100s of years old ideologies.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the rich???
You don't understand what I am saying do you? These issues predate the rich people we have now, and even hurt some of them. Billionaires are still bad people, but they aren't the only problematic people in societies.
They have a vested interest in keeping the working class divided amongst itself.
Obviously other problematic people exist. But the wealthy are literally spending money to make sure we care more about being mad at each other than being mad at them.
I hear this said a lot. To me it sounds like different billionaires support different causes because of what they believe and what's in their best interest. Obviously they are against the working class; I am not trying to deny that. That doesn't automatically mean they support bigots.
Do you have evidence that most billionaires support bigots? If not your words are nothing but conjecture.
It's not about supporting bigots, and I didn't say that. It's almost as if you're deliberately obfuscating the point with bullshit.
I'm saying they're paying for messaging with the goal of manipulating the working class in to fighting amongst itself. It's literally the reason outlets like Fox News exist in the state they currently do.
What percentage of billionaires support fox news or similar organizations?
How am I obfuscating anything? You made a claim that billionaires support people who divide the working class based on things like race, gender, sexuality and so on as many others gave claimed. I asked for evidence as is my right. That seems simple enough to me.
If you can provide the evidence then I will accept what you are saying. Until then I am not gonna take you seriously. I see no reason why billionaires wouldn't also be divided on political lines since everyone else seems to be.
They literally are, not because they are firsthand committing moral atrocities like murder, but because they intentionally keep structures in place that bring about moral atrocity, despite being the only people capable of changing them.
So serial killers are not problematic then? Good to know.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about since if anything there's been a wealth of leftist literature within the past couple of decades, and if anything ideologies such as anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism are experiencing a renaissance.
I also find it highly suspect that your first go-to example of leftism is a failed authoritarian state like the Soviet Union rather than groups like the Zapatistas, the anti-fascist movement in the US, Food Not Bombs, many horizontally structured local coalitions, or other much better examples of leftism manifesting in helpful and vibrant ways.
Class reductionism is harmful, though -- I'll agree with you there.
Anarcho-communism comes from Krapotkin, right? He wrote the book on it. He died over 100 years ago. Sure there might have been newer literature but it's still based on 100+ year old ideology.
Anarchism is better in many ways than Marxism. The issue I have is that they get steam rolled by more organized regimes in places like Kronstadt in the USSR, or what happened to anarchist communes in Spain and Ukraine. I don't think they can stand up against a well organized army. I would love to be proven wrong obviously. As long as regimes like fascism, marxism, capitalism are still around it will be difficult to make communes stick without some external force to defend them.
I choose the USSR as Marxism is far more popular in the UK (and I think the US too) than Anarchism. It's the most obvious example of a failed Marxist regime.
Don't give a fuck about rich people regardless of race, sex, or anything else. Just because a group of rich people can also inadvertently harm themselves doesn't mean they are not effectively 100% to blame.
The USSR was what happened when dictators pretended to be socialist and victimized their subjects. This has little to do with Marx' economic theories.
I agree with you here. I've started to see the left/right spectrum as not very useful, and the authoritarian/anarchist spectrum more appropriate. If peace, stability, and sustainability are ever achieved, it won't be at the point of a gun or the order of an authoritarian.
I want evidence rich people caused this mess. It's said all the time that they are at fault for rascism, sexism, homophobia, etc but never proven. These ideologies go back to slave times, long before the world of capitalism and billionaires. It's possible some are exploiting existing divisions to suit their own ends, but that's different from being the sole cause of a problem.
Then why did it happen in almost every country with a socialist revolution lead by marxists? The USSR is only one example, you could look at China or North Korea for example.
Anarchism is great until a well organized army comes around and invades them. If someone can find a way to build a commune without it getting invaded by tankies or fascists or the USA then I am all ears.
LOL LOL! LOOLLLLLLLLL!
I don't know why you'd be an apologist for the rich unless you are one. I don't care much to get into it anymore with someone defending the rich, if you can't understand this nothing I say would change that. I mean you can't even see that the issue with the USSR, i.e. a dictator is also a problem in China and N. Korea.
Any tiny group, commune or not, surrounded on all sides by powerful hostile enemies will fail (unless they are tolerated). Anarchism (anarcho-communism) if it's at all possible, will come from cultural changes on the bottom, not from some privileged commune successfully fighting the world. It will come from economies failing due to people rejecting them and making, growing, and sharing. It will come when people can see that cooperation is superior to mutual exploitation.
IDK if anarchism is possible, but everything other than anarchism involves powerful groups forcing their way on vulnerable populations and I know that's inherently wrong. I support what's right, not what's most likely.
If you make a serious claim the least you can do is provide some evidence. Otherwise why should I take anything you say seriously?
I've often wondered if anarchism is actually more just. How do you deal with things like criminals without resorting to vigilantism? You must have a solution to this if you want to build stable communes. I don't read much anarchist literature as I don't care for 100 year old books, so there might be a solution there.
Dismissing the practicality of an idea as being unimportant is not great. If you support something you know won't work you aren't helping anyone.
Edit: also I don't know how you can call me an apologist for the rich. I am all for eating billionaires for breakfast, I just want it to be for the right reasons not something people have made up.
What would you accept as evidence?
You know like a study or financial documents proving the majority of the bourgeoisie or even just billionaires support or fund rascist, sexist, homophobic or other kinds of organizations that attempt to divide people.
Even then I expect there to be exceptions like Bill Gates who are known for their philanthropy. Exceptions aren't a reason to keep around billionaires of course as no individual should have that much power, money, or influence.