this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
371 points (95.4% liked)
Not The Onion
16011 readers
1764 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
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
Do you want to clean your toilet?
There's a large difference between taking care of your personal living space and having communal services, and maintaining sewers and toxic waste is at a far worse level. Legitimately, you're digging a deeper logical hole here.
You'll have plenty of protective equipment. That's not the issue. You'll even have robots.
The issue, I think, is that you don't know what it's like to be part of a tribe, never have felt the solidarity and the motivation to contribute according to your abilities that comes along with it.
I thought you were an Anarchist, why are you requiring society to advance to full automation of dirty jobs before changing the system? What happens between now and that level of automation?
I absolutely know solidarity, I've worked in factories and industrial environments, alongside union members and leaders, and have contributed to my family and community. You're making assumptions about me to try to dig yourself out of a logical hole. You want incredibly advanced technology and people to willingly take dirty jobs, but to not have any formalized administration beyond the informal structures that arise naturally. You want this now, but can't describe how to get there beyond "solidarity."
What you are describing is fantasy. You can't describe how you'd get people to do the unquestionably horrible jobs that are nonetheless necessary without requiring them to be automated. The real issue is that you seem to be detatched from the broad working class and think everyone would magically do what's needed without any administration or direction, this is not even in line with Anarchist thinking.
I suggest reading The Tyranny of Structurelessness, it's the formalizing of structure that provides for actual democracy and collective aggreement, leaving it informal and based on respect leaves it unaccountable.
We already do have robots that clean sewers, cleaning sewers isn't actually the point but doing things "people don't want to" and, duh, what'll happen is inventing all automation that might be necessary, as part of prefiguration.
In the meantime I would much rather have a socdem government than a tankie boot in my face. Ask anyone from a post-soviet country as to why.
No. I'm drawing conclusions from your choice of argument. What, in your mind, and be honest now, is the social standing of people doing such jobs? Are they respected? Do you respect them? Investigate the value attached to those things, and where those judgements really come from. Did you form them yourself, after careful analysis? Do you have them because it is socially expected that you have them? Is it fantasy to value the sewer worker next door more than Elon Musk? Do you think a society, at large, might be capable of doing that?
When the fuck am I supposed to have said that? Did you, *drumroll*, assume?
...ok you got me. I want this now. I also want bedtime to be abolished. But I'm also an adult, old enough to understand that actionism does not lead anywhere as the socio-psychological component of the system is furnished to prompt exactly that unreflected actionism that reinforces it. Your rebellion has been factored into the equation and is being used against your dreams. It is not sufficient to swim against the stream, you have to get out of the river. It's nice here, btw, I have dry socks.
You're running into even more contradictions as we move right along. You'd rather have Capitalism, warts and all, than Socialism. Further still, assuming you're in the Global North, you'd rather perpetuate Imperialism and vast exploitation of the Global South, which is a necessity for Social Democracy in the Global North and perpetuation of Capitalism. Really, this reveals your true intentions, by approving of Social Democracy for as long as "prefiguration" lasts, you approve of the Imperialism it requires to sustain itself. You oppose Socialism more than you oppose Capitalism and Imperialism.
Moreover, this "prefiguration" phase would be be better accomplished in a Socialist state, would it not? Socialism for Marxists is already a transitional phase to Communism, and Marxists want collectivization. Seems you just want to live off of the exploitation of the Global South until they are milked dry, then live in a utopian commune free from struggle, or bad things like pooping.
As for your nonsense notion that I don't "respect" sanitation workers, it's the opposite. I respect them greatly, but I understand that their jobs are extremely dirty and toxic, risk their health and safety, and most do so because they need to make a living. Someone will have to end up doing such work, it is not fully automated, so it is better to have systems like job rotation or lower working hours for the same pay as a form of "hazard adjustment" as is in place in several AES states.
Your last paragraph is just pseudo-intellectual idealist masturbation. It was funny to laugh at, but that's about it.
No. I would rather have liberal democracy than regress to feudalism with a different coat of paint. Actionism is a trap, the system is begging you to oppose it in certain ways because doing so will only reinforce it. If you want to sit on the long end of the leaver, you might need to walk some distance.
Then get them safety equipment and robots.
You want things to be de-commodified, don't you? "A stateless, classless, moneyless society". You say currently sewerage workers are compelled by money, I take that to mean that you think they only do it because they need money because otherwise they'd starve.
But they would be supplied for in communism whether they do that job or not. So why would they still choose to do the work? For the greater good, of course. This isn't something that's unique to Anarchism. You're trying to saw off a branch that you yourself are sitting on.
In a soviet-style state: Definitely not. You need freedom of association to be able to get people used to the necessary modes of organisation. The USSR did not tolerate such things, China does not tolerate such things. The reason is simple: They do understand that it is in direct contradiction to the centralisation of power, and thereby the privileges of the party. To do prefiguration, you have to eat humble pie.
Please explain how a democratic, publicly owned economy is "feudalism."
Furthermore, please, try to actually understand Marxism and not just make up whatever you want about it. Labor vouchers and credits aren't money, money is made to be exchanged amond individuals. Labour vouchers being used to buy goods and services from the social fund isn't money, because they are destroyed upon use. No "greater good" sacrifices necessary for you to live on the backs of those with the short end of the stick!
As for prefiguration, it doesn't seem to be possible in a Capitalist state so far either, so again you just approve of Imperialism and Capitalism so long as it's your state that sits on top of the Global South.
Truly, you have no clue what Marxists actually advocate and you don't understand Marxist states either, why are you bothering to reply? What's your goal here?
Democratic is not what the USSR was, and that style of thing is the only thing Marxists ever achieved. There's also a difference between public ownership and state control, doubly so in non-democracies. Also you're leaving out a model not really seen anywhere outside of liberal democracies and that's foundations, that is, self-owning companies. Zeiss is a good example. Their purpose, according to statute, pretty much say "We do optics and funnel some money to the University of Jena", no shareholder interest at all.
Dude Latinos are the most vocal and active in the prefigurative space. There's a reason we use a Portuguese term, "especifismo", for a basic organisational principle. It's the failure to think outside of the vanguardist box that makes Marxists not achieve anything but regression: Don't dilute yourself to be better and more enlightened. You are not, you're also a mere human. Anarchists understand we need to eat humble pie when talking to people, that we do not have all the answers, that all we have is a good compass and a toolbox that can help people to walk into that direction, on their own terms, at their own pace, organically, without coercion, which is crucial because the end goal does not contain any coercion.
How do you eat if you don't have a labour voucher? How is that "to everyone according to need"? It's the same "bow to the bosses or starve" tyranny as capitalism without welfare state.
Your bits on the USSR translate to "I said it wasn't democratic" as well as "state and public control is totally different and in the USSR it wasn't public" so they can be safely ignored, given the books I already linked proving otherwise.
As for Imperialism, I mean you specifically who said you wanted to live in a Social Democracy in the Global North rather than Socialism. I don't think you share many views with most Anarchists, based on how you seem to understand Anarchism and prefiguration.
As for labour vouchers, those aren't the only way to get things, and they'd likely become unnecessary once production advances enough. You can have social services and whatnot, but during the development of Communism (and Anarchism, whether you agree or not) labour vouchers are a necessary form of accounting. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work" can only truly become "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" at a higher phase of Communism with more advanced Means of Production. Things like healthcare and education are usually free or inexpensive in AES countries, same with food.
It is not "the same as Capitalism," because production is not done for accumulation of profit in an M-C-M' circuit, and because production is publicly owned and planned. Very, very different from private ownership and competition for accumulation and profit.
Noone but tankies considers the USSR to have been democratic. You can use a different, non-standard, sectarian, definition of a common concept all you want but don't be confused if people don't agree with your equivocation tactics.
No. I said I do not want to live under what you call socialism, which is, in the best case, red-painted oligarchy. I'd love there to be actual socialism but in the meantime, until material conditions are created which actually allow a revolution, and that includes resilience against a Bolshevik counter-revolution, a liberal democracy with a social market economy is adequate. It is an improvement over your red-painted oligarchy, ask any East European.
As to your implied accusation of colonial exploitation: First off, there's no cannon boats of ours sailing up your rivers, we gave that up long ago: If you don't want to sell us stuff, then don't sell us stuff. Secondly, this. The USSR never cared about the conditions the people producing their imports are in, somehow a social market economy does manage to.
Guess Wikipedia is "tankie" now. For a better source, Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan (also referenced as a source on the Wikipedia page). I also recommend Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. Again, nobody is going to care what you say if you keep doubling down, when you have been given sources and you provide none other than "only bad people agree with you" you've already admitted to not having done the research necessary to make such a claim.
Your next paragraph is worse, when you rely on "any East European." Nostalgia for the Soviet Union is well-documeneted. 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want Socialism back, and this number is actually a good deal higher in many post-soviet sattelite states. When you do no research and assume yourself to be right, you show others exactly how unreliable your other points are. Why make a point easily googled to disprove?
As for your defense of Imperialism, I'm quite happy to be proven right, you're a neoliberal at heart with an Anarchist coat of paint. No Anarchist I have ever spoken to, regardless of their opinion of the USSR, has said Imperialism is fine once it has been pointed out. The US maintains 750 foreign military bases just for the US military, it's much higher if you include Western Europe, and they make up the same economic bloc. These countries exert power to force slave-like labor in countries they intentionally under-develop by expropriating vast amounts of resources. Imperialism in the 21st Century as well as Super Imperialism are great books to check out to remove the neoliberalism from your brain and take a proper anti-Imperialist stance.
To quote Michael Parenti:
Why do you keep replying? What is your goal?
You did not read the article. It makes a clear distinction between council democracy itself (soviet means council), and what was implemented in the USSR. There did exist some democracy on lower levels that were not of immediate interest to the higher-ups, but that was also the case under monarchism.
Russians have neither a liberal democracy nor a social market economy. They're also not terribly educated about the outside world. Ask Poles, ask Ukrainians, ask Romanians.
That asks specifically about the economic situation. Probably due to current factors such as affordability of rent, you won't see me arguing that there's work to do in those areas. Oh wait Hungary tops the list yep that's not surprising they just got EU funds cut due to democratic backsliding and they were very much a net recipient. Fidez is a bunch of corrupt fascists. We'll have to switch stereotypes around, Romanians are supposed to be the thieves I guess it's ok they can still be the drunks.
Which imperialism did I defend? I said that we stopped sailing cannon boats up rivers. I'm fucking European don't dare blaming shit Seppos do on us.
Unless you mean the "pressure companies abroad into not using slave labour" thing in which case yes I'm completely fine with us throwing our big economic dick around. Do you have any issues with us using our economical power to combat slave labour and other forms of exploitation, even against the will of governments in the global south?
And, no, we're not the "same economic bloc" as the US. This is our bloc. Mercosur is likely to come into force soon, US is way unlikely to ever happen. Things that may puzzle you: It actually includes Vietnam.
...then elect better governments? It's your countries, your responsibility. Do something with those riches, like for starters distributing them fairly, and growing them. Are we supposed to swoop in and direct you in how to do it? We'd very likely do a better job this time around but generally lost the taste for imperialism so the answer is no.
To save your soul.
Wikipedia, however, does consider it democratic and used a source I already gave you that proves that it was, along with another that does as well. You have nothing working in your favor.
As for your racism against Eastern-Europeans, it's no shock that they preferred the Socialist system when 7 million people died due to its dissolution and the introduction of Capitalism brought mass poverty. Pretending that they are "too stupid and uneducated" to tell you that they had it better under Socialism than under Capitalism is that neoliberal chauvanism oozing out. Really, you have a lot in common with Reagan and Thatcher in worldview. Really, it's similar to Orwell's view of Eastern Europeans as stupid, illiterate, and destined to be taken advantage of, as he portrayed them in Animal Farm.
Denying the existence of G-7 and NATO wasn't on my bingo card, neoliberals like yourself love those. Trying to pretend you do "good" Imperialism is European Chauvanism, it's nice to see you own up to it. The IMF brutally exploits the Global South with predatory loans. This is a process also referred to as Neocolonialism, and exerting power is often done under the convenient guise of "helping" the Global South. This is the same sham as calling the IDF "the most moral military in the world." The fact that you blame the imperialized and colonized countries you yourself benefit from for being imperialized and colonized is monstrous behavior, akin to Churchill blaming Bengali's his policies starved on themselves:
Or, more topically, Macron recently saying African countries should be thankful to France for colonizing them:
It's hilarious that you think you're trying to save me when you've been fighting against Socialism and defending Colonialism and Imperialism. Such a Neoliberal "Anarchist" is an oxymoron.
-Michael Parenti
Wikipedia does not consider anything anything, it describes how other people describe it. Basic media literacy, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You seem to be confusing racism with banter and it's kinda telling you can't tell the difference.
The IMF did a lot of shit especially in the past, but don't pretend that loans were forced on states, or they would treat even EU countries any differently (remember Greece?), or that it wouldn't be a UN institution that the global south itself co-founded. Haiti was made to take on debt, ages ago, and France is skirting its responsibility, yes. But IMF loans? If you don't want them, don't take them.
What you're doing here is blaming stupid decisions of southern governments on the north. You act as if you were incapable of governing yourselves.
But it's oh so fucking easy to blame diffuse foreign powers. It's a tactic employed by many politicians in the global south: "Don't look at our corruption, blame the evil Europeans". They're distracting you and you're falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
...and the French are making fun of him for it. He's not exactly popular, as you might have heard. His only saving grace is that he's not LePen.
I'm curious: What do you think about the German-Namibian hydrogen project?
There's really nowhere to go if you won't even entertain the idea of reading sources beyond glancing at Wikipedia.
As for the German-Nambian Hydrogen Project, I am not familiar with it and don't have the time to research for a satisfying answer on it. I'm not going to speak on something I don't know enough about.
Ha! We reached max comment depth so I'm replying here. Feel free to answer or don't or just tell me to end this I think lemmy wants to send us a message.
If I had a dime for every time a politician blamed colonialism for the consequences of their corruption I'd have enough money to buy them. Which, btw, would be illegal. As in: It's illegal for me, under domestic law, to bribe people abroad that's why the Chinese are making inroads in Africa we're not matching their bribes, any more. Russia, at least, is pretty much out of the game now after they overextended, they're at least a magnitude worse than the Chinese in approach.
Or, differently put: Maybe be a bit more specific when you say "global south" or "global north". We're currently defending Ukraine against imperial aggression from the north, you might've heard of that.
What drives our economies, btw, what makes us so rich, is labour productivity, industry with high degrees of automation, uncoupling value-add from labour investment. Which is why it's so fucked to see a country like South Africa fall to the consequences of corruption, to wit, more blackouts than electricity production. No, it wasn't evil England who made the ANC bleed Escom dry. Those are domestic problems requiring domestic solutions.
I'll reply as best I can, but really, I don't think it makes any sense to continue. This convo moved very far from the original roots being that the 3 arrows symbol is anti-Socialist, and I don't think either of us has had our minds changed in any way, really. If yours was, you haven't indicated it at least.
In this comment, you make a bunch of unsupported claims and use terms in ways that indicate you aren't really familiar with them at all and are just responding to what I said based on what the terms sound like. A quick example is calling Russia the "Global North," which is geographically correct but from the geopolitical definition is very wrong. The "Global North" refers to the United States, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. These are the more developed Capitalist countries that make the bulk of their income off of Imperialism, which you also use in a manner that is entirely different from what I have been using.
Imperialism isn't a military intervention, for Marxists. Imperialism is sort of like an international Capitalism, where wealthier countries rely on slave-like labor internationally in order to grossly underpay. Consider this, why is most of the world's production in countries in Africa, Latin America, and particularly in China and southeast Asia? Because wages are kept low and overexploited. The ruling classes of colonized countries make deals with foreign Imperialists in order to pocket the vast majority of the money sent, while their citizenry is kept destitute. This is the concept of "unequal exchange."
Labor productivity isn't what drives European economies. China has more developed automation these days, as a necessity for being essentially the world's factory. What drives European economies is the concept of generational wealth at a country level. If you have, say, 1 million euros invested, and hand it down in a century, it would grow to much greater heights, yes? This is also true for countries, if an abstract example. What truly rules the US and Western Europe is financial Capital, not industrial. The Global South produces, and the Global North consumes.
Your foreign policy is indistinguishable from Thatcher and Reagan, and yet you claim to be a Leftist. You really need to read more books like the ones I linked if you want to keep yourself honest, you blaming the colonized and Imperialized is like the trust fund kid telling the poor immigrant family to "pick themselves up by their bootstraps."
If you get the time do read up on it, aside from checking that everything is indeed kosher, ask why you haven't heard of it before. Why, in the list of data points you are exposed to, one that does not fit the colonial exploitation narrative seems to be missing.
Anyhow short rundown: Germany needs green hydrogen for its industry (at least until fusion, it's dependent on energy inputs), Namibia has lots of wind and sun, world's best location in fact, and Germany the tech to turn that into electricity, then into hydrogen, then into ammonia for transport. Germany is going to finance the initial stage of the project which includes enough generation capacity for Namibia's electricity demands as well as to start exporting. IIRC it also includes fixing up the Namibian electricity grid. Namibia is planning on using its revenue share to further expand things and become an exporter of both green energy and refined metals, because when you have lots of hydrogen and also lots of iron ore it does make sense to export steel instead of ore, if not finished metal products. Value added yadayada you know your Marx.
And Namibia really can use the extra money. There's plenty of stuff to invest in, from making sure San are not malnourished over not re-introducing school tuition to speeding up land reform. With easy access to capital and material, I'm sure Namibia will become a manufacturing powerhouse, at least compared to its population size. Sensible people look for win-win situations, and this is one of them. SWAPO even calls it Socialism with Namibian characteristics.
(Side note: Australians so far do not seem to have understood that it makes sense to keep the value-add in country, it's not like they're lacking in cheap energy, or the capacity to tap it. Confounds me to this day).
Even if we assume the best intentions for this one specific deal, which I won't because I haven't read up on it, Imperialism and neocolonialism still drive the economies of the Global North. I recommended many sources that thorughly document this process to the point of no longer being deniable.