3 ms·

"Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people paid attention." Yeah, I know. We have the same in germany. The common people now do pay at

"Some kids blocked traffic in London for 1 day, and suddenly people paid attention." Yeah, I know. We have the same in germany. The common people now do pay attention to the road blockers and want them all jailed as terrorists. I just do not see, how this will help the cause. "If people were more hysterical, and the HQ of offending corporation burned down occasionally, then Nestle would sort itself out prompto" Yes, they would simply tighten up security. Rage is just rage, it does not solve anything, unless it is channeled constructivly. Lynch mobs just create a state of fear and people driven by fear seldom act smart. We do need the rage to act, but just acting does not improve anything. It is the right act, that can improve. There was this big rage about poverty and exploitation that lead to socialism. But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? I was born into such a state. I do not think so. They were worse for the workers and worse for the environment.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? For some it did. In many places socialism was replacing some form of tyrany, foreign tyrany or feudalism, so it was hard to make things worse. Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life. The other side of my family had someone who was repressed, i.e. dissapeared. Today suffragettes are universally praised and noone remmbers that they invented the letter bomb. I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life" Before the revolution in russia, there were indeed quite some slaves. After the revolution, there were only slaves. Someone who is locked in and cannot leave the country and has otherwise little freedom to move and act, is a slave by my definition, so for me there was no overall improvement, rather the contrary. "I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience." I think it mainly needs to have a clear vision of what to achieve, if it wants to achieve that goal and not just blow of steam and create drama. So, I am not saying, that blocking roads for example, is always bad, if it creates necessary attention to get a important message across. But what exactly is the message of extinction rebellion? We are all doomed, if we don't stop consuming so much? Because this is the message people are getting. This is not helping the common people, who struggle daily to feed their family - and if those people have to fear of loosing their job, because they missed work because of a road block, then they certainly will not join the movement. If you want to convince people, you have to provide solutions. Green tech is a solution, but activism alone can only bring awareness towards it and not solve anything by its own. Otherwise I would join the road blocks.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > Before the revolution in russia, there were indeed quite some slaves. After the revolution, there were only slaves. Someone who is locked in and cannot leave the country and has otherwise little freedom to move and act, is a slave by my definition, This is fictitious argument. My Grandmother lived in USSR, she had education, a choice of career, could move across thousands of kilometers if she fell like it. She had axess to functional, if basic, medical care. Her grandmother was property, she was illiterate and had to grind wheat by pulling the mill, untill her legs gave out. She died in agony. She could not leave the place to get medical care, even if she could afford it. Sure living in USSR wasn't great, but if you think that's equivalent to being forced into slavery, you have left the plane of reasonable discourse.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "Sure living in USSR wasn't great, but if you think that's equivalent to being forced into slavery, you have left the plane of reasonable discourse. " A house slave in the US was way better of, than a field slave, who were also way better off, than a slave in the mines. Their conditions were not equivalent, but slavery anyway. "a choice of career" Only as long as you strictly stayed in political line and had not the bad luck of someone denouncing you falsely. Or the bad luck of being born into the wrong family, etc. The slaves in the gulag surely had it worse, than the better off ones in Moscow. So yes, the average peasant might have their living standard and freedom raised, but everyone else (except party members) had theirs lowered. Equivalisation of misery, hurey. But we can probably end it here, because yes, generally not being allowed to leave the country, along with the daily terror of political totalitarian secret police qualifies clearly as a condition of slavery by my definition, to which you disagree in a discourse ending manner "you have left the plane of reasonable discourse."
arcticbull 4y ago
> But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? Socialism is a big tent term. One one end you have "social democracy" where a market economy exists with some state ownership and taxation is used to ensure a good standard of living for all. This is also referred to a social capitalism or a social market economy. This is the kind of socialism you find in the Nordics and to a lesser extent Canada. Your Bernie Sanders socialism if you will. On the other end you have "authoritarian state socialism" - the kind of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism you may be thinking of. Then there's communism in which, in it's final form, there is no state at all. These are all socialism but each has had very different outcomes. So to answer your question with a question, to which kind of socialism are you referring? I'd say the former has worked out very well. The middle, not so much. The latter may not even be possible?
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "So to answer your question with a question, to which kind of socialism are you referring?" Obviously Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and add Pol Pot to that list, among Che Guevara and Castro. Good intentions, but horrible outcome. "Then there's communism in which, in it's final form, there is no state at all. The latter may not even be possible" And it is up to debate and depends greatly how you would define "state". Humans have existed and lived, before formal states were a thing, so it is definitely possible, but apart from that, Humans will always have organisations, to well, organize things. The question is, are these organisations mandatory and formal, or not. And then there are informal hierachies etc. so the main question is, will things improve and how and why, when we get rid of the nation states.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
They are trying to get the world to wake up and realize how desperate the situation is. The fact that we’re more worried about getting our BMWs to work on time says a lot more about us than it does about them.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? For some it did. In many places socialism was replacing some form of tyrany, foreign tyrany or feudalism, so it was hard to make things worse. Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life. The other side of my family had someone who was repressed, i.e. dissapeared. Today suffragettes are universally praised and noone remmbers that they invented the letter bomb. I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Before the revolutions some of my ancesteors were literally property. They were serfs, with all the fun bits like regular whippings, and living in a wooden hut. They went to nirmal-ish 2nd world life" Before the revolution in russia, there were indeed quite some slaves. After the revolution, there were only slaves. Someone who is locked in and cannot leave the country and has otherwise little freedom to move and act, is a slave by my definition, so for me there was no overall improvement, rather the contrary. "I don't advocate violence, but if you want a social movement to suceed, it has to have some teeth and power, either through court, money or civil disobedience." I think it mainly needs to have a clear vision of what to achieve, if it wants to achieve that goal and not just blow of steam and create drama. So, I am not saying, that blocking roads for example, is always bad, if it creates necessary attention to get a important message across. But what exactly is the message of extinction rebellion? We are all doomed, if we don't stop consuming so much? Because this is the message people are getting. This is not helping the common people, who struggle daily to feed their family - and if those people have to fear of loosing their job, because they missed work because of a road block, then they certainly will not join the movement. If you want to convince people, you have to provide solutions. Green tech is a solution, but activism alone can only bring awareness towards it and not solve anything by its own. Otherwise I would join the road blocks.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Before the revolution in russia, there were indeed quite some slaves. After the revolution, there were only slaves. Someone who is locked in and cannot leave the country and has otherwise little freedom to move and act, is a slave by my definition, This is fictitious argument. My Grandmother lived in USSR, she had education, a choice of career, could move across thousands of kilometers if she fell like it. She had axess to functional, if basic, medical care. Her grandmother was property, she was illiterate and had to grind wheat by pulling the mill, untill her legs gave out. She died in agony. She could not leave the place to get medical care, even if she could afford it. Sure living in USSR wasn't great, but if you think that's equivalent to being forced into slavery, you have left the plane of reasonable discourse.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Sure living in USSR wasn't great, but if you think that's equivalent to being forced into slavery, you have left the plane of reasonable discourse. " A house slave in the US was way better of, than a field slave, who were also way better off, than a slave in the mines. Their conditions were not equivalent, but slavery anyway. "a choice of career" Only as long as you strictly stayed in political line and had not the bad luck of someone denouncing you falsely. Or the bad luck of being born into the wrong family, etc. The slaves in the gulag surely had it worse, than the better off ones in Moscow. So yes, the average peasant might have their living standard and freedom raised, but everyone else (except party members) had theirs lowered. Equivalisation of misery, hurey. But we can probably end it here, because yes, generally not being allowed to leave the country, along with the daily terror of political totalitarian secret police qualifies clearly as a condition of slavery by my definition, to which you disagree in a discourse ending manner "you have left the plane of reasonable discourse."

arcticbull 4y ago

> But do you really think, that the socialist states improved anything? Socialism is a big tent term. One one end you have "social democracy" where a market economy exists with some state ownership and taxation is used to ensure a good standard of living for all. This is also referred to a social capitalism or a social market economy. This is the kind of socialism you find in the Nordics and to a lesser extent Canada. Your Bernie Sanders socialism if you will. On the other end you have "authoritarian state socialism" - the kind of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism you may be thinking of. Then there's communism in which, in it's final form, there is no state at all. These are all socialism but each has had very different outcomes. So to answer your question with a question, to which kind of socialism are you referring? I'd say the former has worked out very well. The middle, not so much. The latter may not even be possible?

hutzlibu 4y ago
"So to answer your question with a question, to which kind of socialism are you referring?" Obviously Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and add Pol Pot to that list, among Che Guevara and Castro. Good intentions, but horrible outcome. "Then there's communism in which, in it's final form, there is no state at all. The latter may not even be possible" And it is up to debate and depends greatly how you would define "state". Humans have existed and lived, before formal states were a thing, so it is definitely possible, but apart from that, Humans will always have organisations, to well, organize things. The question is, are these organisations mandatory and formal, or not. And then there are informal hierachies etc. so the main question is, will things improve and how and why, when we get rid of the nation states.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

They are trying to get the world to wake up and realize how desperate the situation is. The fact that we’re more worried about getting our BMWs to work on time says a lot more about us than it does about them.