It is worth remembering that offshoring worked precisely because labour wasn’t international enough. In the UK we used to bring migrants from India etc to work in factories and mills. They struck for better pay and conditions, as well as respect, like everyone else. They benefited from the pro-union laws. Offshoring undermined that.
The UK did a similar sort of thing with rationing, “dig for victory”, even nationalised restaurants. I think the point was to prevent a revolution like 1917. Imagine the mass mobilisation of war coupled with the immense hardship of capitalism - it provides a means for people to take over (eg, organisation and familiarity with violence) and the motivation (end the injustice of widespread poverty).
I suspect this was why the UK’s NHS didn’t get abolished after the conservatives came back to power. Weaning people back on to the markets took a long time. We kept rationing until 1958, for instance. Some people suffered from its abolition (my own grandmother said she ate better before rationing ended than for years after) but people generally benefited and so mass mobilisation was averted.
Point out that the uyghur situation is more complex and has historical roots. During the 50s or 60s the Uyghurs pogrommed han Chinese in what is now Xinjiang. The morality of intervention requires us to be ahistorical, and to intervene in conflicts we almost never understand except for with the benefitiof many years of hindsight.
I’d respond that in a system where consent is manufactured by a press which is an outgrowth of the ruling system, is it ever possible to know what war is just?
If you wanted to troll him, say America should take on so many wars that the public and establishment alike tire of being imperialist scumbags while the military itself atrophies through being spread too thin on unwinnable wars.
Questions, I have many!
See: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/en/client_development/custom_frontend.html
In terms of what would be different, UX could focus on eg, surfacing longer comments first, presenting each comment as a thread within a category (which would be a post on Lemmy rather than a community). It could even be a “sticky” forum UX pointed at a single post or set of posts, for instance. That might promote the kind of long running discussions you’re looking for.
What features will differentiate it from eg, Discourse? Or other existing forum software?
Do you have any plans for helping people make and plan groups?
Longer discussions are, I’d posit, more a result of culture than interface. The cultural enablers here would be things like groups with meetings that offer interaction centred around ML topics. It seems reasonable to assume that better tools for this might help with that change.
Just thoughts - it is awesome that you’re motivated enough to do this!
Right, I guess. I suppose I’m just having trouble connecting the dots - seeing how the quantitative becomes qualitative. Time will tell and all that.
Going back to your earlier comment about (effectively) redistribution, it’d be neat to see a federation of coops who distribute some of their surplus/profits to a foundation or something along those lines. Something to act as a petit-vanguard, developing communist projects that can raise class consciousness and so on. Hard to do though.
The Culture series by Iain M Banks. Post-scarcity, fully automated luxury communism type thing. Confronts the reader with various dilemmas about autonomy, utilitarianism and what to do when faced with external threats. I’d recommend starting with State of The Art, which is a short story where the Culture visit earth in the 1970s and try to decide whether or not to make contact.
There’s also the Fall Revolution series by Ken McLeod. It is four books from pre-revolution but post-reconstruction after a century of civil war and plague. The first two books deal with a communist microstate type thing, the third is set on a communist earth after people chose global communism in a vote and deals with the fallout of a runaway singularity. The fourth is an expedition by the communists of the third book to an Elon Musk style ancap colony on another planet. They’re all great, if a bit hefty.
There’s a good section on the Yugoslavian economy and worker self management in particular in “Economic Democracy: The Political Economy of Self Management and Participation” by Donald George. It is available on Libgen in scanned PDF. I’m actually working on turning it into a searchable epub at the moment.
She’s essentially a particularly right wing Gaullist. See dirigisme.
At minimum, it means presidential systems suck.
It’d be very entertaining to watch Macron, as part of a presidential council of three, have to choose between a communist and a fascist. I’d be genuinely intrigued to see how it went. Maybe live broadcast it 24/7 to get reality TV vibes, like the Osbournes.
This is a good one: https://web.archive.org/web/20220308224623/https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii100/articles/perry-anderson-the-heirs-of-gramsci
If you’re interested in more afterwards, I’d suggest going to newleftreview.org, finding his other articles, and finding them on archive.org. It is a neat paywall bypass for lots of publications.
It is a great language with a great history. I’ve been trying to learn for a while but struggle keeping at things on my own: I was reading the Le Monde Diplomatique Esperanto edition for a while but following it was murderously hard. I’m going to try my hand at listening to and reading the things you mentioned though.
Worth noting for those reading who don’t know the history of Esperanto is that it was strongly associated with the peace movement - think “no war between peoples, no peace between classes”. It is almost worth thinking of it as a language suited to international proletarian politics.
OP, did you ever do any summer schools or such? I’ve seen some in Europe but am not brave enough to stick to the “Esperanto only” rule so haven’t been. Also, where are you from?