British taxation on America without sufficient representation:
*results in Boston Tea Party, revolution, etc.*
These acts of property damage and militant resistance are justified and good =) because Britain was clearly tyrannical =) liberty needs to be fought for sweaty =)
Eight people control more wealth than half the world's people, climate change threatens to bring catastrophic damage to the planet, and a proto-fascist sexual predator was just made most powerful man in the world:
*results in some shattered windows and limo bonfires, calls for revolution, etc.*
Um =\ violence is never the answer =/ protest is good and all =\ but this is taking it too far =/ can't you see you're just hurting any credibility you had =\ protests shouldn't interrupt my day =(
he’s defeated orochimaru and that other guy, now get ready for the lone wolf of the shinobi world to step up to the role of POTUS and face off against his biggest enemy yet - social and economic inequality!
If you would go out of your way to argue how easy it is for capital to automate away jobs when labor costs become too high, then you should probably know that you’re giving all kinds of credibility to those of us who advocate fully-automated luxury communism. I mean, think about it: you’re arguing that so much of human labor ISN’T NECESSARY because said jobs can be done by machines, and yet you STILL want the bulk of humanity to pointlessly scrape by laboring for the capitalist class, receiving meager wages to buy the shit they helped generate in the first place. The above billboard is a THREAT. Let’s not mince words – that billboard is bourgeois propaganda designed to turn the working class against each other and against the broader goals of resource democratization. “If you fight for a basic livable wage, just know that you’re easily replaceable, peon!”
This is what leftists mean when they say that capitalism is an economic system filled to the brim with tensions and contradictions; it’s also what they mean when they say that capitalism inevitably produces its own gravediggers. Automation is one of those gravediggers, and it’s a major one at that. As more and more jobs become automated in the coming decades, the working class will face widespread dispossession, ramping up revolutionary class consciousness in the process. At that point, capitalism will either focus on generating more superfluous jobs for people to work or set about instituting a universal basic income – regardless, the point is to keep enough scraps flowing downward so that people don’t call for a broader system change. In this way, capitalism’s ruling class can maintain control over the wealth-producing means of production and imperialist capital accumulation can continue unrestrained.
For these reasons, “more jobs” and universal basic incomes are not enough. We need to democratize the broader social infrastructure and eliminate the profit system. If you recognize how possible it is to automate away human labor, then you should defenestrate yourself out of the Overton Window and use some political imagination – cut out the unnecessary jobs, automate all the labor you can, produce for human need rather than elite profit, and you end up with drastically reduced working hours and bountiful leisure time. This is the essence of fully-automated luxury communism – the natural conclusion of the conditions that capitalism set in motion.
Be wary of automation in the present climate, but always trace it back to the class struggle. Robots taking our jobs SHOULD be cause for celebration; why should we treat these potential liberators as harbingers of dispossession? Technological advancements are pushing us exponentially towards a de facto post-scarcity world, where everyone’s needs can be comfortably met alongside their desires for community and leisure and entertainment, and yet we’re held back by Empire’s insistence on keeping the means of production hoarded under the command of a superfluous ruling class. As long as we are divided into capitalists and workers, humanity will never know full liberation.
You don’t have to read “why sweatshops are good” articles and analysis because it only reaches the same point: “well it’s better than starving” (ignoring deaths in the workplace and people still starving anyway).
It’s interesting how much analyzing people do to defend sweatshops rather than say “hey, maybe ‘work or starve’ is a bit terrible and none of this suffering is necessary”.
Arguments for capitalism rely on an incorrect perception of the 21st century altogether. So, looking at the 21st century: Resources are abundant, wealth is abundant, and technology is advanced.
What does capitalism do about those facts?
1) Relies on artificial scarcity to function.
2) Fails to distribute that wealth accordingly (it’s completely just that 8 people have more wealth than 3.6 billion people…right?)
3) Tells us to fear automation because there is no other option besides 'work or starve’.
That is primitive logic. Capitalism treats society as if we’re still cavemen struggling to survive in a dangerous world, because otherwise it wouldn’t function. So, instead of fearing what the future has to offer, ask yourself why you’re afraid in the first place.
If you blame Native American communities for their poverty, remember that the entire continent was stolen from them.
If you blame Black American communities for their relative poverty, remember that Black Americans were stolen from a continent, trafficked, and enslaved for nearly 300 years.
Tell me again about how your family ‘started from nothing’ when they immigrated. Didn’t they start from whiteness? Seems like a pretty good start.
The American Dream required dual genocides, but tell me again about fairness and equal opportunity. Tell me about democracy, modeled after the Iroquois Confederacy. Tell me your proud heritage, and I will show you the violence that made it so.
Gay Afghans can be deported to their home country, where homosexuality is illegal and “wholly taboo” and they must pretend to be straight, under new British government guidelines for handling asylum applications.
The new guidance for a country where not a single citizen lives an openly gay life has been denounced by human rights groups as a violation of international law, and criticised by the Home Office’s own Afghanistan unit.
“The Home Office’s approach seems to be to tell asylum seekers, ‘Pretend you’re straight, move to Kabul and best of luck,’” said Heather Barr, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Living a life where you are forced to lie every day about a key part of your identity, and live in constant fear of being found out and harassed, prosecuted or attacked, is exactly the kind of persecution asylum laws are supposed to prevent.”
The document, dated last month, clearly lays out the multiple risks to LGBT Afghans from their own families, from Afghan laws, and from Taliban insurgents who consider homosexuality a crime punishable by death.