toxic positivity/ negative peace aside, I would imagine that not being represented within the established political hegemony could foster some negative emotional response.
toxic positivity/ negative peace aside, I would imagine that not being represented within the established political hegemony could foster some negative emotional response.
your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.
news flash: if you do not own capital, capitalism’s essential function is not to improve your material condition, but that of the capital owning class.
edit: civility
argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I’m not going to engage that.
you’ve yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism (which requires scarcity to the extent that it will create it where there need be none, and demands endless quarterly growth within a limited system) is a solution to the environmental destruction to which it contributes.
it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.
private ownership of capital is a race to the bottom, leading inevitably to unsustainable extraction of natural resources. The latter won’t be halted or reversed without abolishing the former.
we need power to be distributed horizontally, not continue to be concentrated in fewer and fewer actors.
the non profit industrial complex serves to launder the reputations of the ownership class without meaningfully addressing oppressive systems or threatening the status quo.
what is generational wealth?
incredibly simplistic perspective, and intellectually dishonest; we traded monarchy for a dictatorship of the capital owning class.
reactionary recuperation of revolutionary aesthetic-- shallow, reductive simulacrum of class analysis, stripped of systemic critique, intersectionality, and radical solidarity.
conservative pandering. lame af.
scrub the influencer brainworms from your gray matter for one moment and produce a critical thought–
engagement with what, exactly?
the signal which carries no message is white noise.
meaningless engagement is distraction, wasted bandwidth.
an emoji is not a meaningful improvement to the material condition of the working class, or a threat to the status quo. It’s not even relevant to the abolition of work.
thank goodness internet tough guys exist to defend limp-dick slacktivism.
hashtag resist
like and subscribe 👍
petitioning for a fucking emoji epitomizes the criticism that social media is a vehicle for diverting action into impotent dialogue.
retributive violence against individual actors is not the same as dismantling oppressive systems, and should not eclipse the important work of creating resilient communities and networks of mutual aid to replace those heirarchies.
this is news?
lhd suggests otherwise, yank.
I love old-school chainswords
how? abolish the standing beaurocratic heirarchy which perpetuates and expends its own power and the interest of the ruling class by inflicting violence on the working class. what that looks like depends on how the people who make up a community choose to govern themselves.
realistically I don’t expect a revolution of the proletariat to take place, so I promote the institution of robust mutual aid networks, radical solidarity (organized labor, intersectional liberatory philosophy), and resilient autonomous communities, to compete with the prevailing system of power.
attempts at anarchist-adjacent organizing have existed, and continue to in some communities, though of course execution varies, as does identity.
the USSR was not an attempt towards a stateless society, being a state-capitalist imperialist kleptocracy.
common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.
love btb.
I would also recommend
“it could happen here”
“cool people who did cool stuff”
“live like the world is dying”
"negative peace "