Yes, exactly. Even if Trump being not totally wrong is a weird coincidence.
woodenghost
joined 1 year ago
What many people ignore about magnetism, is that you can use special relativity to transform any situation involving only a magnetic field into a situation involving only an electric field, simply by changing how you look at it.
We have found that we get the same physical result whether we analyze the motion of a particle moving along a wire in a coordinate system at rest with respect to the wire, or in a system at rest with respect to the particle. In the first instance, the force was purely “magnetic,” in the second, it was purely “electric.”
I love them, but almost never cook with them, because they are slightly more effort than other carbs.
Money gives you a claim on labor, so what it does is, it gives you the privilege to command others around and order them to do and make stuff for you. I'd like stability for my family and friends, but I'd find that unethical (beyond a certain point). So I would try to use that power for political purposes funding comrades. Basically what Engels did. He supported not just Marx but also the communist underground in London at the time. I'll never live a live of luxury, because I don't want to. I'd just give it away to help friends and to fund class struggle.
About exploitation and celebrities: if celebrities were to put all their content out for free and relied only on generous gifts of their fans, than I guess in theory, they could get rich without exploitation. But even then, given the state of the world, they would still have more and more responsibility to try and change it the more privilege (money, fame, influence, etc.) they have. In practice, the people who make the merch, set up the shows, handle distribution and all that behind the scenes stuff are the ones who produce most of the value.
But what if they aren't white, though? /s
My communists can make mistakes sometimes, as a treat.
Sure and when was the last time a company in Europe was nationalized for similar reasons? That's right, it never happens, except to targets of the empire. Mismanagement? Corruption? Tax fraud? They are ubiquitous. European politicians see it as their foremost duty to protect the guilty CEOs, stakeholders and companies.
Didn't they only get the revolutionary new sanitation technology of "trash cans" this year?
I got serious fascist vibes from it and stopped reading.
Yes, I think we need to make an important distinction here. The word "control" is used for two valid, but distinct things: Sometimes it's used to argue about moral responsibility. Sometimes it's about strategy in our struggle. Like if one side "controls" the other, are there nodes of control that can be exposed and targeted politically? I think in both cases, the word "control" simplifies the complex relationship, so I won't use it any more in this. But luckily it's not needed to answer either question.
About moral responsibility, I think it's really important to recognize, that powerful people in the US (politicians, generals, billionaires, etc.) are equally responsible for the genocide, just like the ones in Israel. Both can be morally responsible at the same time. The same goes for state institutions. Morally, the ones in the US do have the freedom to withdraw support and that would stop the genocide. It's not important for moral consideration, that they won't do that for material reasons. To face this moral truth is important for our propaganda and also a question of respect and solidarity for Palestinians.
The other question is about our strategy. Here, a materialist perspective is needed. From inside the imperial core, pushing for BDS is the obvious strategy, which targets Israel directly. But because of the "tangled web of connections", which you mentioned, there are also important sides of struggle in the US. And many center around trying to sever at least some of those connections: the ones between universities in the US and Israel for example. US firms with close ties to Israel are another. There are others and these sides of struggle can be understood as an extensions of BDS.
Politically targeting legislature, think tanks, members of congress with ties to Israel is another logical strategy. It's best to concentrate on few targets instead of spreading our efforts out. Like snipping one strang of a complicated knot at a time instead of trying to rip it all apart at once.
This strategy does not mean, that we believe a complete severance of the connections between the US and Israel is possible. It is not. Even, if Israel was magically destroyed tomorrow, the US would invent a new one. But similar to a labor struggle in which a single strike can't abolish capitalism, anti-imperialist actions can still gain wins, even if the whole of imperialism isn't abolished yet.
I found this on wikipedia:
Irène "was accidentally exposed to polonium when a sealed capsule of the element exploded on her laboratory bench in 1946". That was from her own work. She lived another ten years, then died from leukemia.
Ève lived to be 102 years old and died in her sleep in 2007.
Both actively supported peace and were anti fascists. Irène was a socialist, visited Moscow, befriended Soviet scientists and supported the Republic in the Spanish civil war.
Not saying it's always a great tactic, but here are some answers to your questions: It's usually for prisoners. If you're a prisoner, you could easily be killed. If you're still alive, that means they want you alive. Usually for ideological reasons. To showcase their "justice". A hunger strike prevents your enemies from using you for their propaganda. By starving yourself publicly, you gain an opportunity to publish your reasons and spread your own propaganda in turn
Another thing is, that you make a credible case to the target audience of your enemies propaganda, that their "justice" is not just at all. It becomes credible, because your suffering acts as an "honest signal" (that's a term from biology for a costly action, that's hard to fake). It's meant to suggests strong commitment to higher ideals on your part. Your enemy will have a harder time arguing you only did your "crimes" for personal gain. It's hard to argue you don't believe in things, if you're willing to starve for your convictions.
Yes, I realize how idealist this whole argument sounds. Again, I don't really know, how to tell when this is actually a good idea. Just answering the questions.