Exh Amervnytf
I echo everything that Anya Parampil said to Tucker Carlson in this segment on Venezuela from 2019. I love how she owned/pwnd him (video titled "Journalist Anya Parampil Schools Fox News On Venezuela")
I am very ok with Nicholas Maduro's wokeness and his wokeness is sort of base
I like Chile’s new constitution and I would hope that our own constitution will be rewritten to match it (until we abolish the state,capitalism ,patriarchies, hierarchies, etc)
I believe that the convention in Chile realizes that they cannot make good on their economic promises and are reaching for anything to can be seen as revolutionary changes.
The idpol suggestions in Chile’s new constitution can be sold as easy examples to the public.
Whether that is ‘important to ‘driving toward socialism’ is ambiguous.
For example I like the “justice with a gender approach.” being in their constitution and I want that added to the US constitution too
I like “Guaranteeing the right to physical autonomy, free expression, freedom of association, free press, decentralising media monopolies, etc.: and I want that added to the US constitution too (
I like “Guaranteeing the right to housing, medical care, labor unionization”: and I want that added to the US constitution too
Both of these things currently exist in their law. But they could wait over a year for a filling, two or more years for a lot of surgeries, etc., because of the old fashioned and heavily underfunded national healthcare system.
Also, actual unionization is hampered by all types of stuff that the proposed new constitution in Chile doesn't touch on. For example, only workers who have a written contract for fixed employment can unionize.
That is only about 20 percent of Chile. All other Chile residents --the other 80 percent or so that don’t have a contract, who must issue monthly invoices to their employer to get paid, and who can be let go at any time, are legally banned from unionizing.
In Central and South America you quickly discover that there's a huge gulf between law/constitution and bitter on-the-ground reality, and that is designed to be like that.
I like the “Essentially getting rid of the upper house & making some other sweeping changes (allowing executive snap elections for example)” and I want that added to the constitution too
Though keep in mind, upper houses normally act as a break on hot-headed laws.
Chile needs an upper house as much as the other 200 plus countries that have an upper house. The woke millennials in Chile running the show now realize that by removing the brake as a feature, they will be governing Chile for the next three and a half years. They don't seem to realize that they wom’t always be governing
I like the “Making the highest court have 11 justices instead of 10”
I like the “Nationalizing water resources” and I want that added to the US constitution too
I like the “Creating a 3% threshold for popular referendums”: and I want that added to the US constitution too
I like the “Gender parity: including a mandated 50%+ of women in a lot of parts of the government and bureaucracy,” even though I feel that gender parity in general is a mixed bag
I want us to abolish patriarchy/male patriarchy and I prefer not to use parity in our existing patriarchy/male patriarchy since that is only a bandaid and is an insult to women.
Parity seems just as empty as the complaints that are made about the lack of diversity of corporate boards. What I mean is, who cares what the gender composition is of a bourgeois court is, we need to abolish neoliberalism for true equality and freedom for all
Though Chile’s constitutional Gender parity might be better handled through short-term measures than enshrining in their constitution, especially since it technically forced non-parity (albeit by a small margin) since it affects groups with odd number of people.
I like the “Nation-within-a-nation stuff”: and I want that added to the US constitution too
However, each of the 10ish indigenous ethnicities in Chile will now have their own parallel justice systems which will at minimum oversee sentencing . This goes against the principle that everyone is equal before the law.
In addition, an insane decentralization that allows each region of the country to issue bonds, go into debt with banks, etc. This in Chile, a country where literally half of their mayors are under investigation for corruption. What could possibly wrong?
I want Nationalization of every mineral resource and the mining sector, aggressive import/export controls, providing apparatuses to truly deliver guaranteed housing added to Chile’s new constitution and the US constitution too
I think nationalizing is somewhat dubious since nationalizing something constitutional wise or otherwise will not be a clear or direct ‘drive towards socialism’, since that is perfectly compatible with the opposite (even Augusto Pinochet)
However, mass movement and control over institutions would ‘drive towards socialism’
Though Chile’s synth-left government is wrong for sending police to break strike and arresting refinery workers
Idpol in South America leftist politics is pretty good and sort of based
I support the work that Glenn Greenwald did in going after and exposing the right-wing Brazilian government
I support the Haitian protestors.
I support the Free State Project
I have no issues with the Second Vermont Republic. Vermont has been negatively effected by a lot of statist Republicans moving there in droves, and due to some anti Bernie type policies hurting their states so them seceding would stop those negative things from happening
I am not against the sovereignty movement of Hawaii .I am sort of mixed on that
I support the Chile 2019 social protests to quote the protestors “It’s not 30 pesos, but 30 years of indifference”
I tolerated Cliven Bundy in his feud with the Federal Government. Even though his views on social issues he expressed are obviously ignorant it doesn’t remove his right to protest his land .
The government has no right to intrude on Bundy's property over petty, punitive laws unless they change the property whole system (which I want them to do as outlined elsewhere in my blog), then I am fine with their actions against the Bundys of the world.
Cliven Bundy was unique and showed how to not give in even though he was wrong.
Like Dr Cornel West, I believe that the September 11 attacks "gave white Americans a glimpse of what it means to be a black person in the United States", feeling "unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence, and hatred for who they are". I further agree with Dr West when he says "The ugly terrorist attacks on innocent civilians on 9/11", he said, "plunged the whole country into the blues."
Landback is bourgeois academic falsification of justice for colonized people is a covert mechanism for the ruling class to privatize and ruin the legacy of the US’s beautiful public lands and environmental stewardship .
Handing control of the land to Native Americans makes it that much harder to abolish private property using the state. This is what happened with the Bolsheviks back in the day.
I support self determination for Native Americans but they can’t get self determination until we abolish and reimagine/alter private property as mentioned elsewhere in my blog and to do that we can’t grant them landback first
I am open hearted to the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone as a legit country and the creators and residents of that zone .
I am against America involvement in Central America (ie Nicaragua) under former President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s . If I could relive my life over knowing what I know now, I would support the Sandinistas as a kid in the 1980s instead of being apolitically against them as I was in my current life as a kid
The US is rich in wealth, while Cuba is rich in spirit. The people of Cuba possess an even more valuable wealth than the US does, and their suffering has made them closer. The US would be wise to learn from Cuba’s faith rather than export our (the US’s) degenerate capitalism to them.
Under Fidel Castro's leadership his country was a model for equal rights and he cared for his people (when he wasn't doing bad things like human rights abuses to them). I also like how Cuba wasn't globalized and that Fidel Castro recognized Israel’s right to exist.
I like how equal and diverse Jonestown (Peoples Temple) was under Jim Jones. Obviously, the suicides and murders are indefensible as are the extreme and senseless abuse that kids endured there along with the other human rights violations committed at Jonestown.
Instead of mass murder and suicide, Jim Jones should have moved himself and the commune to the Soviet Union (while giving a plane ticket back to the states to anyone who didn't want to make the move and all people who were there with him involuntarily).
Once there I would have wanted Jones and his commune to stop their human rights abuses and to live like the early Christians in the early book of Acts lived (but adopting pragmatic 2010s 2020s etc Russian Orthodox church ideology (in a way that the 2010s 2020s Communist Party of Russia would support) instead of Communism
I am fine with BLM and their alliesdestroying CSA statues and flags. I also echo what Tim Kaine said about the whole CSA statue flag debate (ie since CSA statues and flags are being used as hate symbols now by hate groups they have to be taken down).
But at the end of the day, I don't care about Confederate statues, monuments, glorification or flags. The CW ended almost a century and a half ago and I live in the present and deal with things that have to do with the present
It was wrong and stupid for John Wilkes Booth to assassinate former President Abraham Lincoln and it backfired on him and the South. Abraham Lincoln was a friend to the South (and a Southern enthusiast) and if he wasn't assassinated, Lincoln would have helped and protected the the South after the war better than any President could have done.
However, with Lincoln killed, the South lost their friend and thus became way worse than they would have been if Lincoln had lived.
I am glad that the Young Americans Nationalist group in the 19th century pushed the Union to go to war with the South during the Civil War because that helped free and give equal rights to blacks and abolish slavery
I support the Radical Republicans and the work they did in the 19th century on behalf of the slaves they freed.
I am glad that Canada was a haven for oppressed people throughout its history, including refugees and way before that, escaped slaves lt is good that Canada gave them all equal rights in the 19th century. mid to mid late 19th century Canada and to this day and that is what the Old South should have been and what the US should be now
Slavery and forced labor is wrong and immoral because the whole concept of working (paid and unpaid) is wrong and immoral. People shouldn't be pressured or forced to work to make ends meet. Working (paid and unpaid) is boring, harsh, a time sink and archaic.
I feel that from the 16th century onward, Europe and the US should have given equal rights to women and BIPOC+ (that white males had) in the United States (including Old South), European colonies etc and not used slavery anywhere.
Then I would have wanted Europe and the US to give all citizens of the United States (including North and Old South), European colonies etc the Refusal to work right, and implemented extensive Social Democrat type welfare systems (like those found currently in Nordic countries) and UBI throughout the United States (including Old South which would be true guaranteed housing and food for Southern workers since all of them would be equal, free and living in their own homes), European colonies etc
However, I do not support a Refusal to work right being implemented anywhere on Earth in the future. I feel the only place for it was centuries ago
The US as a whole (North and South) in the 19th century was horrible to their workers in every sense of the word. They each oppressed their workers in their own, unique bad ways (but far worse in the South, as I show below).
However, the slavery of the South (i.e chattel slavery) to blacks was uniquely worse than the industrial wage ‘slavery’ of the North was to its workers due to the nature of chattel slavery itself as I mention below (based on Afro Pessimism). But industrialized wage slavery is especially and certainly no slouch to say the very least brutal due to the industrialized nature of it
According to Afro Pessemism, though slavery had existed at several historical periods and in different geographical locations, the paradigmatic slave for Europeans came to be identified exclusively with blacks.
The Middle Passage ontologically changed African lives in a way that even exceeded the existential imprints left by the Shoah: Jews went into Auschwitz and came out as Jews, Africans went into the ships and came out as Blacks. The latter is a Human and a metaphysical holo caust.
According to Afro Pessimism professor Frank Wilder III, “Instead of slavery being defined as a relation of (forced) labor, it is more accurately thought of as a relation of property. The slave is objectified in such a way that they are legally made an object (a commodity) to be used and exchanged. It is not just their labor-power that is commodified—as with the worker—but their very being.
As such, they are not recognized as a social subject and are thus precluded from the category of “human”—inclusion in humanity being predicated on social recognition, volition, subjecthood, and the valuation of life.
The slave, as an object, is socially dead, which means they are: 1) open to gratuitous violence, as opposed to violence contingent upon some transgression or crime; 2) natally alienated, their ties of birth not recognized and familial structures intentionally broken apart; and 3) generally dishonored, or disgraced before any thought or action is considered.
The social death of the slave goes to the very level of their being, defining their ontology. Thus, according to Afro-pessimism, the slave experiences their “slaveness” ontologically, as a “being for the captor,”3 not as an oppressed subject, who experiences exploitation and alienation, but as an object of accumulation and fungibility (exchangeability).
After the “nonevent of emancipation,”slavery did not simply give way to freedom. Instead, the legal disavowal of ownership reorganized domination and the former slave became the racialized Black “subject,” whose position was marked epidermally, per Frantz Fanon. What followed was a profound entrenchment of the concept of race, both psychically and juridically.
Formally, the Black subject was no longer a slave, but the same formative relation of structural violence that maintained slavery remained—upheld explicitly by the police (former slave catchers and or social/labor control) and white supremacy generally—hence preserving the equation that Black equals socially dead. Just as wanton violence was a constituent element of slavery, so it is to Blackness.
Given the ongoing accumulation of Black death at the hands of the police—even despite increased visibility in recent years—it becomes apparent that a Black person on the street today faces open vulnerability to violence just as the slave did on the plantation. See this and this for more on this
Slavery not being abolished in the South when it was abolished in the North and instead lasting decades more in the South (the only place in the US in the early mid to mid 19th century where slavery was occurring was in the South, not the North), heavily contributed to the anti blackness that is virtually inescapable in our country today and social death that African Americans continue to experience today, as Afro Pessimism mentions like above
So thus, the South was uniquely worse to blacks than industrial wage ‘slavery’ of the North was to its workers.
However this post, is why I still believe that Afro Pessimism is too race reductionist in terms of the evils of Capitalism to 19th century workers in the North and the South and too easily dismissive of the evils of industrial wage ‘slavery’ of the North. This can be seen throughout my blog
Anyway, Union imperialism caused the extreme Capitalist mess of the Reconstruction era South when this type of strategy by the North in their approach to freeing the slaves might have been more preferable
In the US (North and South) in the 19th century, bosses and owners brutally dehumanized and overworked their workers, while either not paying those workers (South) or barely paying them (Notth). The Union bankers in particular didn't want their profits soiled by the truth of the North’s abuse of their workers
Slavery in the *South and the industrial wage slavery (which overworked some workers until they were dead) of the North were just extreme and harsh forms of a bigger picture which was the horrible labor practices, overconsumption, materialism, capitalism, hierarchies etc of the 19th century US (in all places, North, and South alike).
They are large reason that labor unions were created in the first place (*to a much lesser extent as I mention in my Afro Pessimism points above, slavery in the South was more unique worse than the industrial wage ‘slavery’ of the North)
To expand on that, this is why my views on the Civil War and economics/labor-practices in the mid 19th century US/Old South/Confederacy exactly match Karl Marx’s views on those topics .
I believe it was great that Abraham Lincoln was inspired by Karl Marx (and used Marxist rationale) and Christianity (and as mentioned above other inspirations like the Young Nationalists movement) to go to war with the Confederacy, free the slaves, and end the mode of exploitation (slavery) as that was by far the best inspiration and rationale for doing what Abraham Lincoln did back then (going to war with the Confederacy, freeing blacks, and ending slavery).
In the specific case of the US, Karl Marx believed that the worker’s movements had been paralyzed by the existence of slave labor and their inability to adequately address it.
In Capital, Marx writes, ‘labour in a white skin cannot emancipate itself where it is branded in a black skin.’ The possibility of a unified proletarian revolution thus according to Marx relied on the abolition of slavery.
Moreover, Karl Marx almost touched on the unique injustices of slavery in the South that Afro Prssemism emphasizes (i.e that forced labor is an example of the experience that slaves might have, but not all slaves were forced to work and that slavery is social death and the beginning of the anti blackness that is still entrenched in our country today)
Regardless how bad and brutal the North was with its industrialized wage slavery or how uniquely evil their brand of oppression was, there was no more tangible way to create a nationwide revolutionary socialist movement as Marx had wanted than by the North invading the South.
I am proud of Christians helping in abolishing slavery too (so Christianity and Marxism were like a popular Front against slavery). Christians did this because the bible rightfully teaches us that it was wrong (ie Paul’s letter to Philemon etc). We can thank Marxism, Christianity and other methods (but no less important) for abolishment
But that was bittersweet because while slavery luckily ended in the South, industrial wage slavery sadly continued for some time afterward in the North. The war didn’t have a twin effect of leading to a clear and straight path to emancipating the industrial wage slaves in the North as Marx had wanted
I wish that the Western US army or Canadian Army would have invaded the Northern US after the Civil War to free the Northern industrial workers from their industrial wage ‘slavery’ just like the Union invaded the South to free the slaves during the Civil War.
The Old South in particular , should have embraced a hypothetical socio-fiscal system like a Christian socialist movement that is created from a mix of Marxism and syndicalism al htisor (basically like Liberation theology), or Liberation Socialism/Socialism in one country instead of using Agrarianism and Capitalism. along with adopting Josiah Warren’s Mutualism (which includes letting the slaves go free and giving them equal rights)
Since the Old South and its slavery-Agrarianism model was far inferior from a economic (and moral) standpoint to non slavery/Mutualism labor of Josiah Warren, Christian socialist movement that is created from a mix of Marxism and syndicalism al htisor (basically like Liberation theology), or Liberation Socialism/Socialism in one country, the Old South should have rebuilt their infrastructure to support these changes and used machines for some jobs as the North was trying to do at that time.
If the Old South had done this in the 1830s, 1840s, 1850s or even late as the early 1860s, (even if vanilla westerners owned the means of production for the rest of the Victorian era) they would have been equal to if not better than the Union US in terms of economy, culture, quality of life and infrastructure.
The Old South through these new material conditions may have then been able to become socialistic like the USSR, PRC, or DPRK (like Juche) which would have been real interesting and optimal.
I do feel the corruption by the northern imperialists in the reconstruction South was blessing in disguise in that it exposed the North’s greed (that greed is what drove the North to use industrial wage slavery on its Northern workers in the North pre and post Civil War) to the the rest of the world which directly led to the rest of the US , Canada and England pressuring the North to end their industrial wage slavery in the post Civil War Northern US sooner than they would have without the North’s corruption in the reconstruction South
Behind the secession of the South from the Union, after Abraham Lincoln was elected President in the fall of 1860 as candidate of the new Republican party, there was a long series of policy clashes that occurred between South and North. The clashes were not just over slavery as a moral institution (some selfish northerners didn’t care enough about slavery to make sacrifices to stop it, or if they did probably not for the sacrifice of war, [see NYC draft riots in the 1860s for example], though John Brown is a notable exception to this)
It was not so much a clash of peoples (the majority of northern whites weren’t economically favored, not politically powerful, while a lot of southern whites were peasants, not decision makers) as it was a clash of elites. The northern elites at least in some way wanted economic expansion-free land, free labor (which through their industrial wage slavery they almost had), a free market, high manufacturers protective tariffs US banking etc)
The civil war was a clash between the south and north that was a very long drawn out conflict, they didn't just erupt into civil war overnight.
A huge driver between the civil war conflict was the conflicting economic views of the southern aristocrats and the northern elites. The Southerners wrongly and horribly relied on their agarianism-slave model to keep the profits up and they were threatened by the emerging industrial north. This is because those Southern aristocrats were reactionaries
So the Civil War beside being Good/liberation (Union) vs Evil/further oppression (South) was also a class war between two opposing economic views of the elites. That is classic US history
I echo the Civil War views expressed by the writer in this article
I believe that the New England states should have seceded from the Union during the War of 1812 thus forming their own county and helped or took over for the British in that war against the US. Once that happened and New England won the War of 1812 vs the US (and Britain left the US),
I'd want New England to force the South, Midwest, West and non New England Northeast US to be as liberal as New England. It's just that I feel that the US wasn't doing enough to help New England during that war and that New England could have had an opening in seceding and defeating the US to spread liberal New England puritan values throughout the US to make the US more liberal decades earlier and be ahead of the curve hence my support for a 1812 New England secession from the Union and them forming their own country.
I support the United States breaking free of British rule in the 1770s, and fighting for and gaining their independence from Britain. I support the formation of the United States and everything the United States was founded on. I support the United States in the Revolutionary War. The United States was founded on FREEDOM not white supremacy or slavery. Don’t let woke revisionists twist our nation’s founding.
North America should never have been colonized to begin with since European colonists did really steal the US from Native Americans leading to numerous European diaspora groups (like my great grandparents from Eastern Europe) migrating to the US to live on colonized land (the US). I further critique North America being colonized by Europeans from a Post colonial perspective, see here for that
I will never refer to the US as the nonsense "occupied indigenous land". That is radlib nonsense. This land is your land used to be a Communist hymn and something I support. The only base thing about referring to the US as "occupied indigenous land". is that leftists referring to it as such means the leftists are turning Calvinist. And yes since I am xtian I love the fact that leftists are turning Calvinist even if it is by using radlib nonsensical talking points like "occupied indigenous land".
And yes the indigenous people too, but leftists are tokenizing them with nonsense saying "occupied indigenous land". nonsense. Indigenous people just want to be stewards of the land and I support them being stewards and as mentioned elsewhere I support self determination for them too
Comments
Post a Comment