4 ms·

"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

"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."

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."