5 ms·

Today it's Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Tomorrow it's you.

grafmax 1y ago
Also known as the imperial boomerang. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang
4gotunameagain 1y ago
In the context of surveillance or in the context of a genocide ?! I must assume you mean the first one, because Israel would not survive without the US
- NomDePlum 1y ago
  For some people "you" is not the US. So both could apply.
- QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
  North Korea survives just fine without the US. Nukes are enough.
  - HappyPanacea 1y ago
    [flagged]
cyanydeez 1y ago
Its already you, but capitalism. It'll be this soon enough if republicanism continues.
- HappyPanacea 1y ago
  Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested which you can't prevent without being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance.
  - cassianoleal 1y ago
    > Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested I don't think that's the case. I think most people are not self-interested, or at least not in the selfish sense. I think most people are more than willing to sacrifice _some_ direct personal gain for better community gains. The problem is that capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish, so it incentivises even the more community-oriented people to always put themselves first, a lot of the time even in detriment to their immediate vicinity. Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few, and everyone else is just constantly fighting for survival. > being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance That's exactly where capitalism is taking us.
    - randomcarbloke 1y ago
      >or at least not in the selfish sense Wasn't a requirement, self interest doesn't imply malice. >capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish How's that then? >Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few You're cooked, market liberalisation has led the world from >80% in poverty to <10% in under 40 years, even removing huge entities like China.
      - grafmax 1y ago
        Poverty reduction has largely been the result of China’s mixed economy not unbridled capitalism. Guided markets have played a role there - but that’s because they were guided. We don’t have to accept the authoritarianism or any of other effect of markets, simply because markets have played a role in some of the positive outcomes of the past. In fact for the last 50 years in the global north, roughly the same timeframe, productivity has continued to grow but most of that growth has accrued to the wealthiest and relatively little of that benefit has been seen by the median worker.
        randomcarbloke 1y ago
        as I said if you remove china from the data the trend is identical. But regarding China specifically it has been the gradual transition to a more market led economy.
- spwa4 1y ago
  It's scary how this is actually being called out as a problem of capitalism ... when anyone can look up history and see communists were actually doing this in 1946. Not just phones, they were doing it on the street, going as far as sending out people to listen in on conversations everywhere. Makes sense, I guess: there were barely any phones to tap when communists started doing this. In case you don't know mass phone tapping didn't start in the US until decades (plural) later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germ... Not that I have experienced socialists/communists reacting positively to being proven wrong much before. Even when proven wrong by their own historical record (yes, they PROUDLY published they were doing this in 1946, after all, that's what Marx instructed them to do). Yes, the need for mass surveillance of the masses is actually in Marx and Engels's work. In fact it was a part of Marx's work in much the same way as you are arguing it here: he was falsely accusing capitalist and bourgeoisie of mass surveillance, even while he was trying to do it himself. But yeah, Marx is Marx. His whole work, a pamphlet discussing massacring the bourgeoisie ... when, of course, both he himself and his family (up and down, his parents, he himself, his wife, his children) were very much part of the "hated" bourgeoisie. But, of course, in his mind he was excluded. He himself was very much not the evil he was trying to fight, and that every description he published said otherwise ... Very on-brand for communists, that.
  - ta988 1y ago
    I would really much want to see which Marx (with Engels or not) writings advocate for mass surveillance. I would also like to see a reference of when did he call for a bourgeoisie massacre.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      Then I suggest you actually read the manifest. Oh, I should probably declare you technically correct. He does not call for a massacre, just a violent revolution. These are technically not exactly the same. They turned out the same in practice though.
      - grafmax 1y ago

Also known as the imperial boomerang. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang

4gotunameagain 1y ago

In the context of surveillance or in the context of a genocide ?! I must assume you mean the first one, because Israel would not survive without the US

NomDePlum 1y ago
For some people "you" is not the US. So both could apply.
QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
North Korea survives just fine without the US. Nukes are enough.
- HappyPanacea 1y ago
  [flagged]

cyanydeez 1y ago

Its already you, but capitalism. It'll be this soon enough if republicanism continues.

HappyPanacea 1y ago
Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested which you can't prevent without being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance.
- cassianoleal 1y ago
  > Capitalism is just a reflection of people being self-interested I don't think that's the case. I think most people are not self-interested, or at least not in the selfish sense. I think most people are more than willing to sacrifice _some_ direct personal gain for better community gains. The problem is that capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish, so it incentivises even the more community-oriented people to always put themselves first, a lot of the time even in detriment to their immediate vicinity. Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few, and everyone else is just constantly fighting for survival. > being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance That's exactly where capitalism is taking us.
  - randomcarbloke 1y ago
    >or at least not in the selfish sense Wasn't a requirement, self interest doesn't imply malice. >capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish How's that then? >Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few You're cooked, market liberalisation has led the world from >80% in poverty to <10% in under 40 years, even removing huge entities like China.
    - grafmax 1y ago
      Poverty reduction has largely been the result of China’s mixed economy not unbridled capitalism. Guided markets have played a role there - but that’s because they were guided. We don’t have to accept the authoritarianism or any of other effect of markets, simply because markets have played a role in some of the positive outcomes of the past. In fact for the last 50 years in the global north, roughly the same timeframe, productivity has continued to grow but most of that growth has accrued to the wealthiest and relatively little of that benefit has been seen by the median worker.
      - randomcarbloke 1y ago
        as I said if you remove china from the data the trend is identical. But regarding China specifically it has been the gradual transition to a more market led economy.
spwa4 1y ago
It's scary how this is actually being called out as a problem of capitalism ... when anyone can look up history and see communists were actually doing this in 1946. Not just phones, they were doing it on the street, going as far as sending out people to listen in on conversations everywhere. Makes sense, I guess: there were barely any phones to tap when communists started doing this. In case you don't know mass phone tapping didn't start in the US until decades (plural) later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_East_Germ... Not that I have experienced socialists/communists reacting positively to being proven wrong much before. Even when proven wrong by their own historical record (yes, they PROUDLY published they were doing this in 1946, after all, that's what Marx instructed them to do). Yes, the need for mass surveillance of the masses is actually in Marx and Engels's work. In fact it was a part of Marx's work in much the same way as you are arguing it here: he was falsely accusing capitalist and bourgeoisie of mass surveillance, even while he was trying to do it himself. But yeah, Marx is Marx. His whole work, a pamphlet discussing massacring the bourgeoisie ... when, of course, both he himself and his family (up and down, his parents, he himself, his wife, his children) were very much part of the "hated" bourgeoisie. But, of course, in his mind he was excluded. He himself was very much not the evil he was trying to fight, and that every description he published said otherwise ... Very on-brand for communists, that.
- ta988 1y ago
  I would really much want to see which Marx (with Engels or not) writings advocate for mass surveillance. I would also like to see a reference of when did he call for a bourgeoisie massacre.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Then I suggest you actually read the manifest. Oh, I should probably declare you technically correct. He does not call for a massacre, just a violent revolution. These are technically not exactly the same. They turned out the same in practice though.
    - grafmax 1y ago