[yellow, a finger up, looking smug]
The answer to oppression is NEVER violence
Turn the other cheek
Pacifism always wins
You could earn rights by asking nicely instead
[yellow, proudly showing us a huge book]
Don’t believe me?
Open a history book!
[yellow, looking frustrated as they are shuffling through the book’s pages]
Ok so…
Uhm…
Not this page…
Wait…
The next one…
Awkward…
Another…
Yeah but…
For sure this time…
[yellow, sweating, protecting their book, a hand raised towards us]
Can you stop looking?
You’re being rude
That’s my book
https://thebad.website/comic/please_resist_responsibly
We’re rapidly heading towards an inflection point where no amount of town halls, lawsuits, etc will fully halt the wave of destruction. So while these resistance campaigns are needed and should continue, how long are they going to work within the part of the timeline where democracy and all of the mechanisms have been fully eroded, reversed, and proven to be placebos?
I still find the meme funny, even if this is all far more nuanced. Some examples:
I think eventually we’re going to need a combination of both, but it needs to be lead with structure and intelligence. Billionaires are going to continue to erode and ignore democracy, while a bunch of city officials will continue to fold to the almighty buck, similar to how AIPAC has turned tons of politicians into useless genocidal drones. We’re going to be pushed into a corner where we can either fight back with everything we have access to, or we can keep pulling on levers they’ve systematically destroyed in order to nullify our democratic power. It could be 5, 10, 20 years from now. We don’t know when but authoritarianism—especially now in such unknown times—makes it inevitable.
The TL;DR here is that we need to clearly define what counts as violence. Destroying Flock cameras and hindering data centers is in the same bucket and it’s self-defense, but it’s not violence in the sense that we think about it. If someone automatically thinks that “violence” means “overthrowing the government,” they’re willfully (or maybe not; probably a good time to educate and share knowledge with fellow working class folks) ignorant to a whole bunch of smaller, more focused acts.
Other examples:
And those are just very recent examples.
I appreciate you expanding on examples. All of this paints a clear picture, and even Peter Thiel has said the quiet part out loud: the ruling class see democracy as a problem because it prevents them from owning everything and keeping us as wage slaves.
That’s just an intermediary goal. The end goal is actual slavery.
Eh, I’m not so convinced. Capital didn’t allow slaves to be replaced with paid laborers out of the goodness of their hearts, but because slavery became obsolete - it’s simply less profitable.
If you’ve got a bunch of enslaved workers, not only do you have to keep them alive (i.e. provide some minimal amount of food/shelter/medicine), but you also have to keep them in line and prevent them from just running away. That means you need to employ guards (enough to stay above some minimal ratio of slaves to guards), which is an additional cost. Not to mention that people generally don’t enjoy carrying out forced labor, so your slaves will likely not be as productive as possible.
Now, if you take the same group of slaves but convince them that they’re “free” and are performing voluntary labor in exchange for some form of monetary compensation, the whole equation changes. You can just pay each “wage slave” the same amount that you would have been paying yourself for necessities, plus maybe a token amount on top so that they can occasionally access a little bit of luxury and keep morale up. You don’t have to pay to maintain a guard force (now the guards can also be employed as ordinary laborers, increasing your labor pool!), and workers will probably be more productive on average since they get to feel like they’re getting something in return for their effort. It’s literally just more cost-effective than slavery - the former slaveholder has fewer costs, lower risk of their workers revolting, and better performance per-worker.
The calculus got a bit imbalanced for the better part of the last century, since the rapid and continuous economic growth throughout much of the world (the Western imperial core in particular) meant that there was enough surplus that workers could actually sustain a decent level of luxury expenditure on an ordinary salary. Now that growth is slowing down Capital is just clawing back the territory it allowed to get taken during the glut. I don’t see us returning to actual slavery, but something more like how things already are for much of the working class across the imperial periphery and developing nations (or like things used to be in the imperial core; think British factory workers in the mid-late 19th century): shitty working and living conditions, and long working hours in exchange for barely enough pay to scrape by.
True, but things could change again, slavery could become profitable again.
Maybe just starting with getting paid in some cryptocurrency company scrip, maybe made profitable because they can use robots and surveillance as guards, etc. But I don’t think they’ll ever be truly satisfied with wage slaves. They begrudge every single penny they have to part with in wages.
How could slavery ever become cheaper though? You need some type of guards/supervisors to keep the slaves from just leaving. I guess you could get rid of that and just entice laborers by offering shelter, food and other essentials in exchange for work, but that’s not really the same thing that people generally mean when using the word “slavery” - it’s a 1950s-era coal mining town in West Virginia. Unless someone develops a way to get people to continue working for less than the bare minimum they need to scrape by (i.e. the workers all die of hunger, disease or exposure), there really isn’t a way you can get away with lower cost per worker than by using wage slaves under capitalism.