theluddite

Oh hey I wrote that lol.

Not all protests for Gaza were meant to gain engagement, many were organized to cause direct economic disruption to those that profit from the war, that is a goal.

I actually totally agree with you. I should've been more careful in the text to distinguish between those two very different kinds of actions. I actually really, really like things that disrupt those that profit, but those are not nearly as common as going to the local park or whatever. I might throw in a footnote to clarify.

This kind of consumerist green-tech is not solarpunk. Solarpunk is about imagining a postcapitalist future, when human needs are met not just within ecological constraints, but as part of a healthy ecosystem, and technology exists to aid us in doing that. It's about envisioning a radically changed world. Tools like these are the exact opposite end of green-tech: They're specifically designed to fit neatly into our life as it exists today. The ad copy is super clear about that. The promotional materials even have an SUV.

To be clear, I'm not taking a stance on whether they're bad or good, but I am saying that they're not solarpunk.

"The workplace isn't for politics" says company that exerts coercive political power to expel its (ex-)workers for disagreeing.

But situations like Ukraine (and what’s brewing in Taiwan) are conclusive proof that we need a capable military.

That's extremely facile. The word "capable" is a massive understatement. Our military budget is bigger than the next ten countries combined. That includes Russia and China. There are years when the American military budget grows by an amount bigger than the entire Russian budget.

Also, because American weapons do sometimes end up on what you consider the right side of a conflict doesn't conclusively prove anything about the American war industry, or the American military, in general. There's a Yemen, a Gaza, an Iraq, or a Pakistan for every Ukraine.

re:Taiwan - When reporting on the situation in Taiwan, American media relies heavily on think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It's a very sanitized, academic sounding name, but they're funded by the Arms industry and the Pentagon, and all they ever do is advocate for a bigger military budget. I'm not saying that China is puppies and rainbows, but I am saying that our military budget is already so much bigger than China's, and that these think tanks have a vested financial interest in convincing us that China is a huge threat and our budget is too small to confront it.

Just to add another example, it's the same with Iran: When those protests broke out in 2017, the American media had arms-industry-funded think tanks on nonstop constantly advocating for "regime change" and military build up in a country already completely surrounded by American military bases. That doesn't seem like a good faith path to peace to me. Imagine for a second how the US would react if Iran put a single base within our hemisphere, let alone all along the Canada and Mexico borders.

Like i said in the OP, good propaganda isn't lies, but the truth selectively emphasized. Drones are a threat, but I have a problem with the way that the whole package is being presented here. I get that, in a way, it's a subtle complaint, but the subtlety is part of what makes it effective. That's why it took me 3000 words to explain my point!

I suspect that another important point of disagreement here, besides my personal moral objection to making weapons of war in general, is that I believe that arms manufacturing and wars themselves can't be treated separately, as you're doing. Weapons contractors are hugely influential in American politics. They spend tons of money advocating for war, which reenforces the giant war budget, which feedbacks forever. Basically every news article about foreign policy quotes a defense contractor funded think tank, for example. They also give generously to hawkish members of Congress.

I'm very upfront about my slant. I'm biased against war, and against those who profit off weapons of war. The site exists to advocate openly and honestly for the world that I (and my collaborators) want to live in, and that world just doesn't include popular YouTubers making ads for companies worth billions of dollars that make death robots owned by billionaire ghouls, even if some of their products aren't as bad as others.

I don’t remember Mark saying the drones were cooler than the Patriot, I remember him saying that they were significantly less expensive (though I didn’t go back and watch to confirm).

He has an animation about how they're recoverable and talked about how they're part of their program that use new technology like SpaceX and such. He definitely hyped it up.

This piece seems to be saying that there can be no good use of military systems, and we shouldn’t say anything positive about them, because some of them are being abused, which is nonsense.

"Because some of them are being abused" is a comical understatement when talking about the American drone program, or American militarism in general.

But more importantly, that's just not what I said. There's a huge difference between "there can be no good use of military systems" and criticizing one of the single most influential educational YouTubers with more followers than there are people in most countries for uncritically repeating American "war on terror" style propaganda towards children while fawning over an arms dealer.

Thanks friend! I appreciate it so much!

Your comment perfectly encapsulates one of the central contradictions in modern journalism. You explain the style guide, and the need to communicate information in a consistent way, but then explain that the style guide is itself guided by business interests, not by some search for truth, clarity, or meaning.

I've been a long time reader of FAIR.org and i highly recommend them to anyone in this thread who can tell that something is up with journalism but has never done a dive into what exactly it is. Modern journalism has a very clear ideology (in the sorta zizek sense, not claiming that the journalists do it nefariously). Once you learn to see it, it's everywhere

That's why I say that antisolutions are context-dependent. This is being presented as the solution to plastic, not as a clean-up plan after we have banned plastic, or even while we ban plastic. The former is an antisolution, while the latter could be a responsible project. Antisolutions are dangerous because they deflate the political will necessary to actually solve the problem, not because the technology is problematic in and of itself.

You're always invited, and always fun to run into you on the other side of the fediverse from my perspective (I could never find a satisfactory way of using both lemmy and Mastodon on a single account that worked for me).

That's such a great suggestion! I haven't read it but will now, and I'll get back to you when I do.

Okay here's some wide-ranging suggestions, mostly focused on theories of change, as requested. A lot of it is authors whose views I don't necessarily endorse, but I find their contributions meaningful all the same, if that makes sense.

• Erik Olin Wright's "How to be anticapitalist in the 21st century." It's short. It's easy to read, and makes a case against capitalism, for socialism, while sketching out a light revolutoinary theory. I actually don't like his theory of change, personally, but I do respectfully recognize his contribution to the discussion as a clear-writing and insightful scholar.
• Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution and the Mass Strike." I like Luxemburg. A lot of Marxists have many critiques of her theory, but no one can doubt her revolutionary practice. She and Lenin were contemporaries, and had many, many, many disagreements about socialist revolutionary theory, often writing in response to each other. I find their disagreements to be productive.
• Lenin's "State and Revolution," or maybe "What is to be done?" Lenin is not, in my opinion, a particularly compelling writer, nor do I necessarily endorse his politics. Frankly, he comes across as kind of an asshole. Still, I think that the modern anglosphere could benefit greatly from reading him, especially re: your "peace sign" complaint. Lenin writes with urgency about the issues that face him and his revolution. He's completely fucking appalled at the state of the world, and to him, the injustice inherent to the status quo makes every single new day of it intolerable, so he is determined to do something about it now, not later. His clear goals, his urgency, and his complete commitment to an orthodox interpretation of Marxism are a wild combination of strenghs and dangers that come through very clearly in reading his work. In my opinion, Lenin is at his best when analyzing imperialism, though I'm suggesting things that have a theory of change right now.
• Huey Newton's "Essays from the Minister of Defense." Huey Netwon was a Black Panther. It's challenging stuff, in a lot of ways, but I thought it might interest you given your previous comment.
• Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." When the fascists were taking over Spain, Orwell grabbed his gun and was determined to shoot them. The book is about his experience as part of the leftist resistance that was both fighting the fascists and running Catalonia.
• The work of Abdullah Öcalan, or anything else about the existing situation in Rojava. It's super interesting and complicated, and not much discussed in the anglosophere. It was also greatly influenced by the work of Murray Bookchin, who I have somewhat mixed feelings about.

I have a ton more but this comment is long and I have to work so I'll leave it there.

edit (can't help myself): I also want to recommend the work of the various socialists involved in The International during the lead up to the first world war, like Trotsky, who I do really like and is a very strong writer, but also Lenin (this is what I was talking about earlier re:imperialism) and many others. This history was a big part of my own journey to becoming a socialist. The International saw what they called the "imperialist war" coming. They knew how bad it was going to be, and they tried to organize all the socialist parties in Europe to be disloyal to their national governments in favor of international peace if/when it came. There's an alternative reality, much closer than many of us realize, where the parties that composed the international held firm to their commitment to oppose their national governments by any means, and WW1, one of the worst things that has ever happened, didn't happen, at least not as we know it. Instead, the international collapsed as the parties folded to their domestic pressures. The lyrics to l'internationale talk about this commitment (formatting with code because I don't understand how to make lemmy keep the newlines):

The kings make us drunk with their fumes,
Peace among ourselves, war to the tyrants!
Let the armies go on strike,
Guns in the air, and break ranks
If these cannibals insist
In making heroes of us,
Soon they will know our bullets
Are for our own generals

This is extremely based, and it was much more mainstream in the early 20th century than it is today. How much better would the world be had we kept this alive? Imagine if there were active major parties that prioritized loyalty to international peace before their own "national security" interests.