Something white folks like me from "middle class" backgrounds really need to fucking deal with is that privilege isn't just the advantages that put us a little ahead or give us a little more comfort or space or whatever.
-
@artemis I don't claim we have a solution for solving this without a "clean slate", but I also know that a "clean slate" without having built something to replace what's being wiped away will mean death for a huge number of people - disabled, those depending on ongoing medication or otherwise medically vulnerable, etc.
A lot of what looks like "incrementalism" isn't an unwillingness to shed the comfort of privilege but a knowlede that we don't know how to protect a lot of the less-privileged in "revolution".
@dalias @artemis I think that's fair to write. I was just doing some writing about the 'adjacent possible'... and when I saw this thread I wanted to point out that we generally choose our prisons and do our best to decorate them well.
Freedom itself is an illusion; agency is not. And what we're really discussing, I think, is that agency. That sovereignty of the soul.
The clean slate only works if we can shape a better version of the cage of freedom.
We deserve better. We all do.
-
Whenever someone tells me too many people would get hurt if we tried to make big, immediate change, instead of trying to use the current system to slowly steer things, they list what they think the cost of change will be & who will get hurt.
I never see them weigh that against the other side of this: the people who suffer & die from things as they are.
I just want to put the moral calculus out in the open. If you make this argument, you must have determined what costs are acceptable. Tell us.
@artemis this thread is great and I have boosted it.
One thing that's coming up for me, tho, is... I'm starting to think the dichotomy between "revolutionary" and "incrementalist" is a false one.
Like, I could be accused of being an incrementalist because I believe in voting as a solution.
You may raise an eyebrow and say "but voting hasn't worked so far, has it?" And yeah. Left-wing votes are cancelled out by right-wing ones, and further swamped by a big mass of shrugging centrists. Left-wing parties fall to entryist career politicians beholden to corporate interests, and judges and upper chambers stand in the way of progressive changes.
So. Armed revolution then. But that needs an overwhelming buy-in from the populace. (That or military support, but that's a coup, and those tend not to go great.) So we need a massive consciousness raising effort to get people on-side...
But... then... maybe we could try the whole voting thing at that point?
️ Get proper leftists primaried, then vote then in.Then if you get a clear majority of leftist politicians in power, the line between "incremental change" and "revolution" becomes blurry. Tax rates can be raised overnight. UBI implemented. Utilities socialised. Police forces defunded. Upper chambers reformed. Prisons shut down. Why go gradual if you don't have to?
...at the threat of which upheaval maybe the system does rebel against the will of the people. And maybe some shots will need fired then. Just to confirm that, yes, we're fuckin serious.
It's like. Voting is, always has been, the implicit threat of force. The provable demonstration of superior numbers at the ballot rather than battlefield.
Whether the force is actual or implied, consciousness-raising is the first step. Arguing over whether voting will or will not work feels premature at this stage. Maybe we try it and have backup options too.
-
I'm starting to get the idea that the reason the Jesus character in the Gospels always told rich people to sell everything they have & follow him is that without surrendering the things which shelter you from oppression, you will always be at risk of downplaying it, because you will not experience what others do, not really.
I'm not advocating for vows of poverty, but it sure does make some sense: as long as there is comfort, we can avoid confronting the worst truths.
@artemis that's a very interesting way to look at it. I, for one, am way too comfortable these days.
-
We think we've "got it". We think we understand because we can analyze the systems & point out the faults.
But how well do we comprehend it all, really when there is suffering we more or less forget? It is hidden from our eyes. It is inflicted on people we do not regard with respect. We imagine it is in some way inevitable or cannot be helped.
And as long as it goes on, all pretense of "good order" is a fucking lie.
@artemis I grew up 1960ish white, & middle class. Did not understand the conflict until dropped into an integrated school and at first I gravitated to white and viewed those of color as other. But as I grew intellectually, I finally understood the conflict. Plus, I joined a union, then gained understanding of the relationship of worker with “sorry can’t afford that” management (cont) 1:2
-
@artemis I grew up 1960ish white, & middle class. Did not understand the conflict until dropped into an integrated school and at first I gravitated to white and viewed those of color as other. But as I grew intellectually, I finally understood the conflict. Plus, I joined a union, then gained understanding of the relationship of worker with “sorry can’t afford that” management (cont) 1:2
@artemis 2:2 and came to understand that equality, and equal opportunity, were pretty words designed to fool us, that they exist or are an intention.
Today I think I’m a better person. I understand a system built on equality and equal opportunity, can’t tolerate racism, bigotry, or wealth gluttons. I see people as people, we’re all in this, it’s just that some of us think it’s OK to get ahead by stepping on others, instead of viewing us as a large hive that needs each other to succeed. -
If the cost of change now is too high, then I expect to see you crunching the numbers & keeping track of the data to see if the calculus ever changes.
Otherwise, I would have to think you aren't concerned about people's lives in general, just the lives of the people you choose to count.
Surely there is such a thing as too much, right? Too much cruelty, too much exploitation, too much death to justify the continuation of systems of oppression until they can be "gradually reformed"?
@artemis I can generalize this to "my ignorance is an excuse to not change my mind", aka "I don't have time to research this properly, so I'm going to let my feelings decide".
How do you even talk to someone who thinks that's acceptable. >.<
-
It is fucking uncomfortable. I bet it's really hard for those among us who have kids, who want them to have stable, comfortable lives. Of course you do! You love your kids.
What about the people whose children suffer abuse in foster care because they have been stolen from them by the State, kids who will never enjoy the stability & comfort that you wish for for your kids?
Are you willing to choose "incremental change" that will result in countless more victims just so that YOUR kids are fine?
@artemis Once upon a time, I might have believed there was some value in preserving the existing system, in effecting regime change as much within the ground-rules as possible. People within the system have taken oaths to uphold it, to uphold those rules, and making people break their good-faith promises didn't seem like a good way to start.
...but when the offices at the very foundation of that system -- the Presidency, the Supreme Court (just to name the obvious ones) -- have so very clearly violated their oaths, what do those promises mean anymore?
They're either part of a contract which has been broken and is no longer in effect, or else they weren't made in genuine good faith.
-
At what point is the injustice too much to bear?
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas?" Oh if only a single tortured child were enough for us to reject this defunct capitalist nightmare "utopia"!
How many children have to be torn from their parents because of petty crimes, unpaid fines, or simply FALSE ACCUSATIONS before it really disrupts our peace of mind?
How many years of human misery behind bars in torturous conditions are too many?
@artemis fantastic book
-
@artemis Once upon a time, I might have believed there was some value in preserving the existing system, in effecting regime change as much within the ground-rules as possible. People within the system have taken oaths to uphold it, to uphold those rules, and making people break their good-faith promises didn't seem like a good way to start.
...but when the offices at the very foundation of that system -- the Presidency, the Supreme Court (just to name the obvious ones) -- have so very clearly violated their oaths, what do those promises mean anymore?
They're either part of a contract which has been broken and is no longer in effect, or else they weren't made in genuine good faith.
@artemis Oh, the second part of that: it should, however, take place within the ostensible ideals of the system ( mainly, in my view, consent of the governed and the preamble to the Constitution) that were the reason we might have thought it worth saving in the first place.
-
Fuck "middle class". Fuck "the American dream". Fuck "upward mobility."
It's not freedom until we tear down the prisons.
It's not freedom until everyone's children have food to eat.
It's not freedom until we stop fucking ripping apart indigenous families, Black families, families of color, poor families, HOUSELESS families...
This is not fucking freedom. This is not "order". This is brutal fucking oppression.
@artemis@dice.camp none are free until all are free.
