I was engaging with a collective in the US, and they seemed to be wishing for a global revolution; so excommunication would not be an option like the Kulaks unless the idea is to remove them from Earth.
I guess I can’t judge all collectives when I only engaged with one (go figure, right). I appreciate you taking the time to share information with me. It was enlightening.
This is a fair point, but a general premise to Marxism is a bloody revolution where the working class takes the assets from capitalist bosses. Perhaps some Marxist are interested in alternative methods, but the group of communist members with which I was able to discuss this topic with were not concerned with that.
They demonized and dehumanized capitalist and talked about them as if they were not worth saving, and it was this kind of rhetoric that turned me off from their cause.
Though, it was also their rhetoric which presumed racism and sexism would be solved if we all just view eachother as workers. This seemed to underplay the effects these caste systems have on people.
Is it possible that there is a better a solution to the issues of Capitalism which doesn’t involve the liquidation of entire groups of people?
Being a person who have visited communist meetings, this is my biggest gripe with the ideology. Yes, capitalism today has become corrupted, perhaps even beyond repair. But, I refuse to believe that the only solution is to round up and kill the capitalist bosses in order to bring back power to the working class. At this point, we would be dehumanizing an entire group of people which wouldn’t make us much better than what the far-right does.
To be fair to Clinton, she did do some pain. Remember when she called many of the people who supported Trump, “deplorables”. This riled up America as if she was going too far with describing them this way. Here we are almost a decade later, and we are starting to realize that she was right.
The political landscape is far different now than it was when it was Hilary vs. Trump. Trump has done his four years, and we have now seen the damage he and his constituents have done. We see now that the republican party watched Handmaid’s Tale and agreed with the fictional government in that story. There is no hiding how deplorable some of these folks are especially with the publishing of Project 2025.
Folks, we do understand that when Kamala was a senator, her vote on topics were statistically aligned with Bernie Sanders.
While a senator, Kamala’s votes aligned almost 100% with protecting the environment (according to the League of Conservation voters.
She agreed with Bernie Sanders “College for all” act which would fund tuition for lower income students looking to go to a public university.
She co-sponsered a bill to ban assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and to limit gunstores advertising campaigns.
She backed the “Medicare for all” bill sponsored by Bernie Sanders, which would have established a government funded Healthcare system which would provide health insurance to all Americans and remove private health insurance.
In terms of immigration, she wanted to put ICE under a microscope and reexamine their practices, she supports DACA, opposes a border wall, and wants to investigate a means to alleviate illegal immigration by attacking the problems in central and South America which is causing these folks to try to run to the USA.
At the end of the day, I would not be surprised if Biden was influenced by her ideas, because if you look at what he has done in his four year term, he has moved his political needle more left.
The reality is the civil rights movement is both about increasing the social power of non-white citizens AND decreasing the social power of white citizens.
The former is what usually feels okay for white citizens, but the latter tends to be what white folks call “reverse racism”. It doesn’t feel great losing the social power tied to your caste, but it’s necessary to create an equal opportunity society.
Have you tried earnestly starting the discussion, or are you expecting others to start the conversation on your behalf? 🙃
The Japanese were attempting to negotiate surrender with the “neutral” USSR prior to the nuclear bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan The US wanted an unconditional surrender which included the destruction of the Japanese emperor, who at the time, was the head of the Japanese religion. To put this into perspective, consider the United States request similar to requesting the destruction of the Pope within the Vatican. Because of this, the Japanese were seeking better terms of surrender which did not involved the removal of their religious leader. What the Japanese did not know at the time was the USSR was not a neutral party, and they were secretly mobilizing their forces on mainland Asia due to an agreement Stalin made with FDR prior to the US entering the war in Europe.
The reality is, once Japan learned that the USSR was not neutral and they were going to be fighting the US and the USSR in a two front war, this is when the emperor forced Japan to surrender.
To put things into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were sadly, just another two cities leveled by the US. The US were performing night carpet bombing on Japanese cities as soon as 1944. Many of these raids leveled several square km of urban areas. https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217. This is why people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably not the catalyst to Japan’s surrender because the US have been leveling Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, long before the two nuclear bombs were dropped. None of these raids caused Japan to surrender before.
Describing someone using their race when it is a clear way to discern them from a crowd of people is not racist; but describing someone by their race when it’s entirely irrelevant is likely driven by racism.
The kid being “black” in the statement adds nothing to the information. He could have easily said “I saw a large man at the door and I got scared” and it would not have been any different, since it isn’t like he is trying discern the kid from a crowd. “Black” is being used to justify his fear of the person, and this is inherently racist.
I got you. I think you missed a part on your poster.
Even with DEI practices, white straight males still hold a strong majority of the upper management positions; so whenever you hear about the evils of DEI while indulging in your daily Fox News, Daily Wire, or Newsmax, remember that the buck stops with some white straight males. Hence why blaming DEI for a decrease in quality makes no logical sense.
Most doctors are still straight white males. Most airline pilots are still straight white males. Most of the people who are making major company decisions are still straight white males.
What flavor of MAGA kool-aid you be sipping? Let me give you some nutrition.
Before DEI: two candidates, A and B, are equally qualified for a job. Candidate A is a straight white male. Candidate B is woman, person of color, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Result: Candidate A will get hired.
With DEI: two candidates, A and B, are equally qualified for a job. Candidate A is a straight white male. Candidate B is woman, person of color, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Result: Candidate B might get hired.
The big bang (if it is still a valid theory) would have been unlike any explosion you have ever witnessed. The big bang was not an explosion of only matter, since time and space were both created during this event as well.
I’ve noticed that words that are considered “profanity” tend to be vernacular words that express negative emotions (pain, anger, frustration, etc). The fact that these words are considered profane seems a bit unhealthy, because it limits our ability to verbally express how we are feeling internally. Nevertheless, I think some people might use these words too often. If one is cursing every other word all the time, then it’s a bit like “crying wolf” once they use it when they’re actually experiencing a strong negative emotion.