If those “other factors” were legitimate why would china be investing anything into infrastructure? If they could simply unilaterally repress discontent, why would they invest so heavily in the experience of their working class? Doesn’t that imply a huge impossible level of benevolence, in your version of events, to do these things with absolutely no mechanism for the people to enforce it?
We need to make them fear what will happen to them if they ignore us. Not a potential loss of support or popularity but actual, primal fear of physical consequences.
How do you do this without the organization to lead a coordinated effort? One guy with a gun here and there is an acceptable risk to them, and a useful tool in manufacturing consent.
They do these things not because we haven’t expressed our opposition, they do them because our avenues of expressing opposition are toothless and ineffectual by design.
It’s not about merely “expressing our opposition” it’s about wielding the full collective power of our class in order to enforce our interests. There’s nothing “lame duck” about that.
Their tactics of subversion are merely disillusionment tactics; they want us to think organizing doesn’t work, because without organization we have no way to pose a legitimate challenge to their power. There are ways around their tactics. People have organized and won significant gains under more oppressive conditions, even within our own country.
Slaves could not have won their freedom without organization, nor women the right to vote, nor workers the 40-hour work week and social security, nor could blacks have defeated jim crow… I could go on. Those in power teach us their own perspective version of history that gives them undue credit for these advancements, minimizing the role played by organized resistance, in order to convince us that we don’t need to organize to make change. We must study history from the people’s perspective in order to learn what truly works and what doesn’t.
What we’ve learned is that no politician is ever going to hold themselves or their class members to account, even if it comes at a great cost to their constituents, unless it’s for cynical reasons. We have to organize at the grassroots level in order to make sure our representatives are representing our interests. They just aren’t going to do that for us, despite all the money that goes into making us think that elections alone could ever fix this.
No it’s definitely the latter
There are enzymes in your saliva that actually dry your lips further when you lick them
I was mistaken, the original nickelodeon was a movie theater where admission that costed a nickel. For some reason I had the impression of a machine like this that took nickels.
Ah yes, the original nickelodeon
It sounds like you’re speaking from experience
I’m just letting you know the most good faith interpretation of this post, in case you missed it. I’m not interested in arguing about “common parlance”
In Germany the recycling is sorted at the household level, rather than the mixed recycling that is practiced in other countries. The paper, plastic, glass, and compost all get their own bins and/or bag color.
It’s amazing how much it takes for some to reach the conclusion that systemic change is both necessary and requires… systemic change. As in systems changing. As in greater change than your individual decision to ride an EV or ICEV or public transit. Change that would make it exponentially more intuitive for you to choose the most sustainable one of those options.
Especially if mass transit is not feasible for you, this post is not to shame you or call on you to try and do it anyways. It’s a recognition that riding mass transit is not feasible or intuitive for most people, and a call to make mass transit available to more people rather than investing all that time and energy into the wild goose chase of EV adoption.
The crying indian really did a number on us.
That’s the problem they’re pointing out.
They aren’t doing that, you are. The apples to apples comparison that they are making is our current transit system; with the cars being fully electrified but otherwise as it exists today; versus a transit system that prioritizes mass transit (and walking and biking) over personal vehicles.
Electric cars are a solution to save the auto industry, not the climate.
But also, since you’ve been so pleasant and asked so nicely,
A single molecule of water is not wet but as soon as more than one molecule is present the water is then wet. If there are a substantial number of molecules, then you have the substances that we know as water and ice.
The molecules themselves also are not solid or liquid, that has to do with the behavior of the molecules in dimensional space. At the level of everyday language, we are talking about substances, and generally when we refer to water we are talking about it as a liquid substance.
Most liquid substances you could easily mix with water are themselves water-based and therefore would be totally dried up into a powder or perhaps a jelly without their water content. To add water is to make them wet, and then they exist as a wet incorporated substance. In fact, they could not dry up if they were not wet in the first place; to become dry is to transition away from the state of being wet.
You know what else dries up? Water.
I stand by what I said? Just letting you know that I did so in a playful manner. Go troll somewhere else pls thx.
lmfao if you took this seriously I’m sorry for you but also gfy
Yeah I figured, I’ve seen a lot of accurate accounts of history get derided as being “tankie” or worse without any legitimate challenge to what was said. It’s such a powerful thought-terminating cliche around here that I almost never venture into the .world-sphere anymore.
Fair enough, I was only looking at the dates and lining them up with the limited Russian history I am familiar with. I mean the alternative was still potentially complete Nazi occupation of Poland, if those lines weren’t drawn (Of course it’s a foregone conclusion that the Nazis were going to invade Poland) or to go to war with the Nazis and Poland as the battlefield in hopes of ending up with full Russian occupation, but I guess the distinction is important. I don’t claim to be an expert though, feel free to correct me or expand upon anything I’m missing.
Edit: also the Russians didn’t invade until 16 days after the Nazis did, when Poland was already effectively defeated. Again, feel free to fill in the blanks. Cause to me it seems to me that the pact served as reassurance that the Nazis would stop their invasion at the line drawn, so that Russia could allow the invasion to play out (on the off chance of a Polish victory); rather than invading simultaneously and practically guaranteeing Polish defeat; without risking all of Poland becoming Nazi territory.
I think this is why certain games very much overwhelm and overstimulate me. Luckily it’s a time sink that I don’t really need to have in my life anyways, beyond random occasions when I find something that pulls me in.
How long did that last?
Based on what evidence?
How do you expect to outsmart or overwhelm the state mechanisms of violence protecting those people, or the people that will take those people’s places, without coordination? How do you expect your resistance to go on indefinitely, and not fizzle out as soon as the state gives away the smallest concession, without an organized struggle to spread and sustain it?