LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Salus Maior]

[

Nah.

Direct action is what works the most.

So you don't want doctors and emergency workers to strike then, and such would be unacceptable (despite what you've been saying this whole time).

Sure, and shooting someone and taking their money is 'what works the most' in getting money. That doesn't make it ethical or the only way.

[Uxupox]

I rather trust what a committee of Phd experts say on the matter of the Iranian revolution.

Source that the government gave in to "violence" and not the MLK movement?

MLK's movement openly used the threat of violence (despite being openly non-violent) and the dramatization of black grievances to the point where they couldn't be ignored, as noted in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. Specifically, he openly aimed to bring about tension that implied the oncoming threat of violence despite using nonviolent means to achieve such tension, as he literally says:

"You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking."

That is the direct cursor of a non-violent action. To force change, it is not about negotiation with the ruling authority but to make viewpoint and make them change accordingly in which the great Dr. MLK did so. He even derogates black nationalist movements (as he should, Malcom X and his scoundrels brought shame upon the african-american community with it's pro-segregation stance) with their racial bias.

There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle.

those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.

The King deplores violence several times and urges non-violent solutions to the discrimination and racial injustice that was facing the african-american community during that day. It is not just by principle that the King holds peaceful Ghandi as one of the men who helped develop his message of understanding and change into what it was and is. It was by transcendence and his moral philosophy ("thus saith the Lord") both as a sacrificial Christian and through understanding. And this is why today and evermore that the King is highly regarded across the african-american community for his steadfast approach and the promotion of non-violent action as a means to change.

[Salus Maior]

You certainly support doctors leaving their posts if they're not happy with their pay, which would absolutely kill people.

You can't guarantee that it would kill people.

No EMTs or Doctors for any particular length of time would absolutely get people killed, don't be foolish.

Do you know how many people have heart attacks daily? Or other health emergencies? Even a day without emergency personnel will at least leave one person dead from a lack of services.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

It's supposed to be the "middle ground" between Anarchism (far libertarianism) and Totalitarianism (far authoritarianism). Realistically, that wouldn't be centrism though, so idk

I agree with you. It is the juxtaposition of far left with centrism that I don't get.

Now, with left centrism, I can point to people in that category (like Lord Anthony Giddens in the UK). Who is a far-left centrist? Dunno.

[Greate Boston]

It's supposed to be the "middle ground" between Anarchism (far libertarianism) and Totalitarianism (far authoritarianism). Realistically, that wouldn't be centrism though, so idk

I agree with you. It is the juxtaposition of far left with centrism that I don't get.

Now, with left centrism, I can point to people in that category (like Lord Anthony Giddens in the UK). Who is a far-left centrist? Dunno.

i'm confused as well, to be honest. But the one thing I do know is that while a far-left society (with zero private property) can not be achieved without either no state at all or the state being the only existing entity, there are still people adhering to a "Far left centrist" ideology, ironically and unironically.

[Torrocca]

[

Nah.

Direct action is what works the most.

So you don't want doctors and emergency workers to strike then, and such would be unacceptable (despite what you've been saying this whole time).

Nah, I'm fine with them striking. Them striking doesn't mean people are gonna die.

There's ways to strike that don't involve fucking over the people that most desperately need them :^)

MLK's movement openly used the threat of violence (despite being openly non-violent) and the dramatization of black grievances to the point where they couldn't be ignored, as noted in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. Specifically, he openly aimed to bring about tension that implied the oncoming threat of violence despite using nonviolent means to achieve such tension, as he literally says:

"You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking."

That is the direct cursor of a non-violent action. To force change, it is not about negotiation with the ruling authority but to make viewpoint and make them change accordingly in which the great Dr. MLK did so. He even derogates black nationalist movements (as he should, Malcom X and his scoundrels brought shame upon the african-american community with it's pro-segregation stance) with their racial bias.

There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle.

those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.

The King deplores violence several times and urges non-violent solutions to the discrimination and racial injustice that was facing the african-american community during that day. It is not just by principle that the King holds peaceful Ghandi as one of the men who helped develop his message of understanding and change into what it was and is. It was by transcendence and his moral philosophy ("thus saith the Lord") both as a sacrificial Christian and through understanding. And this is why today and evermore that the King is highly regarded across the african-american community for his steadfast approach and the promotion of non-violent action as a means to change.

Counterpoint: King's movement was just one part of the entirety of the Civil Right's movement and, although the one put in the most limelight, wasn't the only reason it succeeded. Malcolm X was just as essential to the Civil Rights movement as the Indian Revolutionaries also were alongside Gandhi to achieving Indian independence.

[Uxupox]

So you don't want doctors and emergency workers to strike then, and such would be unacceptable (despite what you've been saying this whole time).

Nah, I'm fine with them striking. Them striking doesn't mean people are gonna die.

There's ways to strike that don't involve fucking over the people that most desperately need them :^)

That is the direct cursor of a non-violent action. To force change, it is not about negotiation with the ruling authority but to make viewpoint and make them change accordingly in which the great Dr. MLK did so. He even derogates black nationalist movements (as he should, Malcom X and his scoundrels brought shame upon the african-american community with it's pro-segregation stance) with their racial bias.




The King deplores violence several times and urges non-violent solutions to the discrimination and racial injustice that was facing the african-american community during that day. It is not just by principle that the King holds peaceful Ghandi as one of the men who helped develop his message of understanding and change into what it was and is. It was by transcendence and his moral philosophy ("thus saith the Lord") both as a sacrificial Christian and through understanding. And this is why today and evermore that the King is highly regarded across the african-american community for his steadfast approach and the promotion of non-violent action as a means to change.

Counterpoint: King's movement was just one part of the entirety of the Civil Right's movement and, although the one put in the most limelight, wasn't the only reason it succeeded. Malcolm X was just as essential to the Civil Rights movement as the Indian Revolutionaries also were alongside Gandhi to achieving Indian independence.

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

[Torrocca]

Nah, I'm fine with them striking. Them striking doesn't mean people are gonna die.

There's ways to strike that don't involve fucking over the people that most desperately need them :^)



Counterpoint: King's movement was just one part of the entirety of the Civil Right's movement and, although the one put in the most limelight, wasn't the only reason it succeeded. Malcolm X was just as essential to the Civil Rights movement as the Indian Revolutionaries also were alongside Gandhi to achieving Indian independence.

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

Which has no bearing on the fact that his movement was essential to the successes of the Civil Rights movement. What do you think America would've wanted more: an insurrectionist movement based on racist notions to combat white racism, or allowing for equality to happen? The violence of black nationalists was helpful to the successes of the Civil Rights movement specifically because it forced the US government to circumvent the ideas of such extremists by granting rights to African Americans.

[Uxupox]

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

Which has no bearing on the fact that his movement was essential to the successes of the Civil Rights movement. What do you think America would've wanted more: an insurrectionist movement based on racist notions to combat white racism, or allowing for equality to happen? The violence of black nationalists was helpful to the successes of the Civil Rights movement specifically because it forced the US government to circumvent the ideas of such extremists by granting rights to African Americans.

It wasn't essential to the civil rights movement at all and in fact could be considered a detrimental force to it. The black power movement only peaked after the declaration after the approval of the Civil rights act in 68' (which was after the assassination of MLK). Black nationalism as King called it was ineffective and as history has proven it was.

[Bakery Hill]

My Modest Proposal was that you should have a life, community and interests primarily outside of politics. Have drinks with your mates on the weekends, play/watch sport, make art and music, read good books and go to the gym. Crazy I know.

i met all my mates due to politics, sports are often political (colin kaepernick), my art all has political subtext, i only read books by politicians or parodying them, and there's this dude at the gym who's always talking up trump so i frequently debate him. :^)

This is the saddest post I have ever read.

[Bakery Hill]

Nah, I'm fine with them striking. Them striking doesn't mean people are gonna die.

There's ways to strike that don't involve fucking over the people that most desperately need them :^)



Counterpoint: King's movement was just one part of the entirety of the Civil Right's movement and, although the one put in the most limelight, wasn't the only reason it succeeded. Malcolm X was just as essential to the Civil Rights movement as the Indian Revolutionaries also were alongside Gandhi to achieving Indian independence.

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

Well they both were moving towards the same place when they assassinated. Multiracial socialism. Funny that.

[Bakery Hill]

[

Nah.

Direct action is what works the most.

So you don't want doctors and emergency workers to strike then, and such would be unacceptable (despite what you've been saying this whole time).

Sure, and shooting someone and taking their money is 'what works the most' in getting money. That doesn't make it ethical or the only way.

Doctors and emergency workers are our slaves. We have a right to work them to death as a society. They have no right to withdraw their own labour.

[Mushet]

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

Which has no bearing on the fact that his movement was essential to the successes of the Civil Rights movement. What do you think America would've wanted more: an insurrectionist movement based on racist notions to combat white racism, or allowing for equality to happen? The violence of black nationalists was helpful to the successes of the Civil Rights movement specifically because it forced the US government to circumvent the ideas of such extremists by granting rights to African Americans.

People are always talking about Black power and black nationalism as if it was a big insurrection. If I recall it wasn't even that violent, and they whitewash the hell out of Dr. King's radicalism.

[Cekoviu]

Nah, I'm fine with them striking. Them striking doesn't mean people are gonna die.

There's ways to strike that don't involve fucking over the people that most desperately need them :^)



Counterpoint: King's movement was just one part of the entirety of the Civil Right's movement and, although the one put in the most limelight, wasn't the only reason it succeeded. Malcolm X was just as essential to the Civil Rights movement as the Indian Revolutionaries also were alongside Gandhi to achieving Indian independence.

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

i think it is worthwhile to mention that malcolm x did in fact redact most of his racist views towards the end of his life, though this by no means excuses his earlier bigotry.

[Torrocca]

Which has no bearing on the fact that his movement was essential to the successes of the Civil Rights movement. What do you think America would've wanted more: an insurrectionist movement based on racist notions to combat white racism, or allowing for equality to happen? The violence of black nationalists was helpful to the successes of the Civil Rights movement specifically because it forced the US government to circumvent the ideas of such extremists by granting rights to African Americans.

People are always talking about Black power and black nationalism as if it was a big insurrection. If I recall it wasn't even that violent, and they whitewash the hell out of Dr. King's radicalism.

King's been whitewashed so hard that moderates and centrists unironically look at him as a model of moderation.

If they knew even an ounce of the Socialism they'd throw him under Rosa's bus in a heartbeat.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

... I just said. I'm using it to mean someone between authoritarianism and libertarianism on the political compass.

I am just trying to drop a hint that the term may be confusing.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

i'm confused as well, to be honest. But the one thing I do know is that while a far-left society (with zero private property) can not be achieved without either no state at all or the state being the only existing entity, there are still people adhering to a "Far left centrist" ideology, ironically and unironically.

Well, I dropped my hints. Now, I think I will crawl into bed and go to sleep.

[Nekokuni]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

[Greate Boston]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan. But that's because a lot of modern socialist art forms were used primarily as propaganda tools.

[Nekokuni]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan. But that's because a lot of modern socialist art forms were used primarily as propaganda tools.

Art which is reduced to political devices tends to be sterile and unimaginative, relying more on clichés than sincere feeling.

[Bakery Hill]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

Proscribing them is not good, but I like socialist realism.

[Pasong Tirad]

How do you feel about attempts to establish socialist art forms, such as Socialist realism?

I love it. I am a very big fan of Brechtian Epic theater and Boal's books on the Theater of the Oppressed are basically my theater bibles.

[Uxupox]

Dr. King was the leader of the african-american civil rights movement. No other can or is able to compare. Equating the works of Dr. King to Malcom X is disgraceful to the King communal movement (As one is pro-integregation of all with the other is in favor of segregation of building a black only community).

i think it is worthwhile to mention that malcolm x did in fact redact most of his racist views towards the end of his life, though this by no means excuses his earlier bigotry.

Malcom X was pretty bad just like Elijah. One difference between might be akin to one being Black Hitler and the other being Himmler. There was a big reason as to why Elijah had meetings with George Lincoln (a white nationalist) since they both share similar views to segregating societies to african-american and white american separately (our as they stated founding their own countries based upon their own national values).

There is also no indication as to Dr. King's personal political views as he never once told them in public or if he told his family then they however are keeping quiet as to his political leanings. Dr. King was no radical however he a just man with good will and the perseverance and motivation to see his vision through with non-violent means. Something that can be actively done and serves as an example to our african-american community.

[Bakery Hill]

i think it is worthwhile to mention that malcolm x did in fact redact most of his racist views towards the end of his life, though this by no means excuses his earlier bigotry.

Malcom X was pretty bad just like Elijah. One difference between might be akin to one being Black Hitler and the other being Himmler. There was a big reason as to why Elijah had meetings with George Lincoln (a white nationalist) since they both share similar views to segregating societies to african-american and white american separately (our as they stated founding their own countries based upon their own national values).

There is also no indication as to Dr. King's personal political views as he never once told them in public or if he told his family then they however are keeping quiet as to his political leanings. Dr. King was no radical however he a just man with good will and the perseverance and motivation to see his vision through with non-violent means. Something that can be actively done and serves as an example to our african-american community.

Where on Earth did you get that? There are articles and quotes everywhere on his socialism?

King was expressing his opposition to capitalism as early as 1952. In a letter to his wife sent that year, he noted that “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.” This letter, written before his activism was notable, was merely the start of his radicalism.

In his speech to the Negro American Labor Council in 1965, King declared that “something is wrong with capitalism,” and suggested that “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” His concern for the poor was unflinching and came to greater prominence in his activism towards the end of his life. In his final speech to SCLC, he said: “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” ... When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.”

[Uxupox]

Malcom X was pretty bad just like Elijah. One difference between might be akin to one being Black Hitler and the other being Himmler. There was a big reason as to why Elijah had meetings with George Lincoln (a white nationalist) since they both share similar views to segregating societies to african-american and white american separately (our as they stated founding their own countries based upon their own national values).

There is also no indication as to Dr. King's personal political views as he never once told them in public or if he told his family then they however are keeping quiet as to his political leanings. Dr. King was no radical however he a just man with good will and the perseverance and motivation to see his vision through with non-violent means. Something that can be actively done and serves as an example to our african-american community.

Where on Earth did you get that? There are articles and quotes everywhere on his socialism?

King was expressing his opposition to capitalism as early as 1952. In a letter to his wife sent that year, he noted that “I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic.” This letter, written before his activism was notable, was merely the start of his radicalism.

In his speech to the Negro American Labor Council in 1965, King declared that “something is wrong with capitalism,” and suggested that “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” His concern for the poor was unflinching and came to greater prominence in his activism towards the end of his life. In his final speech to SCLC, he said: “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” ... When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.”

He does prescribe against economical systems in the absence of his talks about any sort of political ideology.