LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Proctopeo]

Or at the wrong end of an angry mob. Either way, it'd largely be justified given the consequences of their absence. Might even be some lawsuits and trials out of it.

Maybe, who knows?

On the other hand, state personnel have had successful strikes in the past, such as in Europe (IIRC there was a recent strike of firefighters in Belgium that went pretty well).

In this hypothetical, you seem to be implying that three major vital groups (the medical staff, the police, and the firefighters) are striking simultaneously. Some of the slack left by the firefighters can be picked up by the VFD, so unlike medical staff and police, it's slightly less dire if they all screw off to get paid more.
If all three screw off at the same time, that's a disaster waiting to happen, and it won't have to wait very long.

Those people who "save lives" who would be actively and intentionally rejecting that duty to save lives for personal gain in this scenario, you mean?

Have you considered that they're people with needs too who shouldn't get fucked over just because they play a role in society so vital they can't realistically fight for their own rights?

And they, or at least the organizers of the strike, should be held accountable for the inevitable consequences of their absence.
Are potentially thousands of innocent lives lost worth it for a raise in pay?

[Torrocca]

Have you considered that they're people with needs too who shouldn't get fucked over just because they play a role in society so vital they can't realistically fight for their own rights?

Then perhaps they should find a way to advocate for themselves in such a way that they're not going to kill innocent people in the process.

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights

Nah, this is just straight-up propaganda.



Like I said, the mechanizations of the state and capitalism continue to pit the working class against each other instead of uniting them against their real enemy.

Straight up truth. Propaganda is what makes you believe it to be otherwise.

Wrong, it's the other way around. :^)

Maybe, who knows?

On the other hand, state personnel have had successful strikes in the past, such as in Europe (IIRC there was a recent strike of firefighters in Belgium that went pretty well).

In this hypothetical, you seem to be implying that three major vital groups (the medical staff, the police, and the firefighters) are striking simultaneously. Some of the slack left by the firefighters can be picked up by the VFD, so unlike medical staff and police, it's slightly less dire if they all screw off to get paid more.
If all three screw off at the same time, that's a disaster waiting to happen, and it won't have to wait very long.

Have you considered that they're people with needs too who shouldn't get fucked over just because they play a role in society so vital they can't realistically fight for their own rights?

And they, or at least the organizers of the strike, should be held accountable for the inevitable consequences of their absence.
Are potentially thousands of innocent lives lost worth it for a raise in pay?

They shouldn't have to be.

Then again, the working class shouldn't be getting fucked over, either.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I was just using centrist as a way to denote someone who wouldn't ascribe themselves as either authoritarian or libertarian on the left side of the political compass.

Yes, but what is far-left centrist. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

[Aellex]

Then perhaps they should find a way to advocate for themselves in such a way that they're not going to kill innocent people in the process.

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights

Straight up truth. Propaganda is what makes you believe it to be otherwise.

Wrong, it's the other way around. :^)

In this hypothetical, you seem to be implying that three major vital groups (the medical staff, the police, and the firefighters) are striking simultaneously. Some of the slack left by the firefighters can be picked up by the VFD, so unlike medical staff and police, it's slightly less dire if they all screw off to get paid more.
If all three screw off at the same time, that's a disaster waiting to happen, and it won't have to wait very long.


And they, or at least the organizers of the strike, should be held accountable for the inevitable consequences of their absence.
Are potentially thousands of innocent lives lost worth it for a raise in pay?

They shouldn't have to be.

Then again, the working class shouldn't be getting fucked over, either.

Again, you might fool yourself about it but the truth remain and so do Anarchy's evilness.

[Torrocca]

I was just using centrist as a way to denote someone who wouldn't ascribe themselves as either authoritarian or libertarian on the left side of the political compass.

Yes, but what is far-left centrist. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

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

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights



Wrong, it's the other way around. :^)



They shouldn't have to be.

Then again, the working class shouldn't be getting fucked over, either.

Again, you might fool yourself about it but the truth remain and so do Anarchy's evilness.

no u

[Liriena]

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

Being correct and being popular don't always go hand in hand.

[Uxupox]

Then perhaps they should find a way to advocate for themselves in such a way that they're not going to kill innocent people in the process.

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights

Straight up truth. Propaganda is what makes you believe it to be otherwise.

Wrong, it's the other way around. :^)

In this hypothetical, you seem to be implying that three major vital groups (the medical staff, the police, and the firefighters) are striking simultaneously. Some of the slack left by the firefighters can be picked up by the VFD, so unlike medical staff and police, it's slightly less dire if they all screw off to get paid more.
If all three screw off at the same time, that's a disaster waiting to happen, and it won't have to wait very long.


And they, or at least the organizers of the strike, should be held accountable for the inevitable consequences of their absence.
Are potentially thousands of innocent lives lost worth it for a raise in pay?

They shouldn't have to be.

Then again, the working class shouldn't be getting fucked over, either.

non-violent movements have worked. such as the Iranian revolution and the great Dr. MLK civil disobedience.

[Salus Maior]

Then perhaps they should find a way to advocate for themselves in such a way that they're not going to kill innocent people in the process.

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights

If killing innocent people is what "wins workers their rights" then you can consider me opposed.

[Sovaal]

Then perhaps they should find a way to advocate for themselves in such a way that they're not going to kill innocent people in the process.

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights

Straight up truth. Propaganda is what makes you believe it to be otherwise.

Wrong, it's the other way around. :^)

In this hypothetical, you seem to be implying that three major vital groups (the medical staff, the police, and the firefighters) are striking simultaneously. Some of the slack left by the firefighters can be picked up by the VFD, so unlike medical staff and police, it's slightly less dire if they all screw off to get paid more.
If all three screw off at the same time, that's a disaster waiting to happen, and it won't have to wait very long.


And they, or at least the organizers of the strike, should be held accountable for the inevitable consequences of their absence.
Are potentially thousands of innocent lives lost worth it for a raise in pay?

They shouldn't have to be.

Then again, the working class shouldn't be getting fucked over, either.

There comes a time for revolution, but revolution should be a last resort.

[Salus Maior]

If their concerns are indeed valid they shouldn't have a hard time getting support for themselves.

Being correct and being popular don't always go hand in hand.

Who isn't appreciative of doctors, firemen, and such personnel?

If they really were being screwed over, people would support them if they were aware of it.

[Torrocca]

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights

If killing innocent people is what "wins workers their rights" then you can consider me opposed.

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.

>Implying moderation is what wins workers their rights



Wrong, it's the other way around. :^)



They shouldn't have to be.

Then again, the working class shouldn't be getting fucked over, either.

non-violent movements have worked. such as the Iranian revolution and the great Dr. MLK civil disobedience.

The Iranian Revolution was violent as fuck and half the damn reason the government gave in to the Civil Rights movement was because of the violence involved.

[Torrocca]

Being correct and being popular don't always go hand in hand.

Who isn't appreciative of doctors, firemen, and such personnel?

If they really were being screwed over, people would support them if they were aware of it.

This sounds like a huge contradiction from the whole, "the people will side against the strikers!!1!" spiel being parroted earlier.

[Sovaal]

Being correct and being popular don't always go hand in hand.

Who isn't appreciative of doctors, firemen, and such personnel?

If they really were being screwed over, people would support them if they were aware of it.

Thing is, people are often unaware.

[Proctopeo]

Who isn't appreciative of doctors, firemen, and such personnel?

If they really were being screwed over, people would support them if they were aware of it.

This sounds like a huge contradiction from the whole, "the people will side against the strikers!!1!" spiel being parroted earlier.

It's not, because if we're informed of their issues without them having to abandon their posts, public opinion will be wholly in their favor.

[Uxupox]

If killing innocent people is what "wins workers their rights" then you can consider me opposed.

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.

non-violent movements have worked. such as the Iranian revolution and the great Dr. MLK civil disobedience.

The Iranian Revolution was violent as fuck and half the damn reason the government gave in to the Civil Rights movement was because of the violence involved.

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?

[Salus Maior]

Who isn't appreciative of doctors, firemen, and such personnel?

If they really were being screwed over, people would support them if they were aware of it.

This sounds like a huge contradiction from the whole, "the people will side against the strikers!!1!" spiel being parroted earlier.

If those people striked, the populace would absolutely side against them.

I'm saying if the doctors, etc, sought support through other means, the people would likely side with them because they appreciate doctors who do their jobs and actually save their family's lives and keep them healthy.

[Salus Maior]

If killing innocent people is what "wins workers their rights" then you can consider me opposed.

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.

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

[Salus Maior]

Who isn't appreciative of doctors, firemen, and such personnel?

If they really were being screwed over, people would support them if they were aware of it.

Thing is, people are often unaware.

Then make them aware.

[Torrocca]

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.



The Iranian Revolution was violent as fuck and half the damn reason the government gave in to the Civil Rights movement was because of the violence involved.

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."

[Greate Boston]

I was just using centrist as a way to denote someone who wouldn't ascribe themselves as either authoritarian or libertarian on the left side of the political compass.

Yes, but what is far-left centrist. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

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

[Greate Boston]

If killing innocent people is what "wins workers their rights" then you can consider me opposed.

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.

non-violent movements have worked. such as the Iranian revolution and the great Dr. MLK civil disobedience.

The Iranian Revolution was violent as fuck and half the damn reason the government gave in to the Civil Rights movement was because of the violence involved.

*cough*The revolution was nowhere as violent as the bloodbaths that followed it. Like almost every other revolution ever*coughs*

[Torrocca]

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.

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

Nah.

This sounds like a huge contradiction from the whole, "the people will side against the strikers!!1!" spiel being parroted earlier.

If those people striked, the populace would absolutely side against them.

I'm saying if the doctors, etc, sought support through other means, the people would likely side with them because they appreciate doctors who do their jobs and actually save their family's lives and keep them healthy.

Direct action is what works the most.

[Torrocca]

Yes, but what is far-left centrist. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

It's supposed to be the "middle ground" between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. Realistically, that wouldn't be centrism though, so idk

Libertarianism, not totalitarianism.

[Valgora]

I never said killing innocent people is what needs to be done, tyvm.

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.

[Greate Boston]

It's supposed to be the "middle ground" between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism. Realistically, that wouldn't be centrism though, so idk

Libertarianism, not totalitarianism.

Fuck. How did I make a mistake in that omfg