HOME | DD
RednBlackSalamander — Gotcha
by-nd
#anarchism #capitalism #politicalcartoon #socialism #syria
Published: 2019-11-28 02:40:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 1582; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
Self-awareness is bourgeois.9mmballpoint.blogspot.com/
twitter.com/9mmballpoint
www.patreon.com/RnBScartoons
Related content
Comments: 9
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
People saying "You can't be anti-capitalist because you use stuff made by capitalist corporations" is like somebody saying they don't like cheese but then they're locked in a room where the only food is cheese and so they eat it rather than starve to death and then the person who locked them in there in the first place says "So you DO like cheese".
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Ok are you honestly doing the "capitalist iphones" argument? Seriously? I can only hazard that you're trying to call a whataboutism on 'tankies' with this comic in which case I would like to claim false equivalency.
Using a smartphone and social media is covered by the term "no ethical consumption under capitalism": Posting a criticism on Rojava due to its open US backing is ideologically in line for leftism and is also pragmatical to boot anarchist fantasies aside.
Rojava was not just a case of consumption under capitalism but is a direct proxy force of the USA, well intentioned volunteers or not. This makes their movement doomed to fail and fall to imperialism. Why? Because while they may be more ideologically preferable to Assad in terms of how far-left they are (a moot argument IMO), they are not nearly as secular or nonsectarian and are borderline ethno-nationalist in some regards. Their ideological 'superiority' is undermined by the IRL fact that they are supported by the USA, which only supports those who are favorable for US interests (like Pinochet, Khmer Rouge and others). At best Rojava would be a repetition of Catalonia, where their own ideology fails in practice to provide and forces them to make compromises and they end up ping-ponging around and wasting time/resources rather than backing their more authoritarian allies against a common foe (ISIS and the FSA).
TL;DR: Their actions and demands divide Syria which makes it an easy target for Turkey and the USA to take over, furthering imperialism.
notonlyS0NIC covered the iphone argument passably well so I won't post on that idiocy.
PS
>Self-awareness is bourgeoisie
The irony is tangible
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
>legit constructive criticisms about the ideological flaws and ironies
Key word being Legit and constructive, most of the time its less legit and constructive and just plain ideological differences. Would they engage you in discussion? Sure, however I personally do not usually engage in this because it largely turns out to be a waste of time and nerves. If you would like to argue about MLs and their 'flaws' please go to bunkerchan.xyz/leftypol/ A community of non-liberal leftists. I don't go there much but they're largely well informed in theory, action and history and constantly discuss such things.
>Should a Marxist-Leninist support the continuation Syria as an Arab Republic
At the moment of the Syrian civil intervention/conflict yes.
1) An Arab Republic is often already multi-ethnic, and contrary to western media hysteria, Syria has not really oppressed any of them. The (for example) Kurds suffered more from the Turks and Iraqis than Syria. Right now the focus is beating ISIS and stabilizing the country.
>demand the transition of Syria from an Arab Republic to a Multi-ethnic People's Republic?
AFTER Assad or any non-NATO supported non-shill leaders stabilize the country, that would be a good time to demand a transition. Syria was already quite left-leaning and I think that it, like in Chile or Iran (prior to the CIA coups) would allow for democratically elected socialism. The Civil War with ISIS and NATO is certainly enough blood shed to convince the Syrians against more violent civil conflict. Revolution is not the first option to jump to, and to actually achieve it reliably usually requires active government level action. As Lenin stated, Socialists need government platforms from which to push the ideology and thus help make the movement more cohesive. Brute force alone will not win a revolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Let's see:
-Satellites: Invented by Soviets
-First cell phone: Made by Soviets
-LEDs: Arguably invented by Soviets
-GPS: Made by the US military (publicly funded)
-Touchscreens: Invented by an English institution, which has been funded by the government, ergo tax money, ergo funded by the public
-The bloody internet: Invented by... you get the idea
Also, the premise of a corporation producing anyting itself, is flawed at best. Workers make the stuff, not the corporation!
Checkmate, liberal! Now, please STFU, or I'll collectivise your toothbrush!
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Now was it Soviet/Communist firms that brought many of these inventions for mass use and consumption by the public. As far as I can tell no. It was Capitalist firms I the West that did so. Is the US Federal government my Internet provider? Did the US military invent the GPS software on my phone? Last I checked non of that is the case.
Yes the government can help with and outright develop new technologies, but it usually takes private firms to bring these technologies and advancements to the broader public.
Yes the worker might make the product, but it requires capital of the capitalists to provide the the tools and resources needed to development, design and manufacture these products. It requires someone willing to risk that capital to ensure that desired products get to market and the masses. Governments are not good at this because they don't have the same incentives to ensure capital is spent efficiently that the capitalist do. Government officials aren't spending their own capital like the capitalist are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course the Soviet Union couldn't bringe those particular inventions to the public, because it doesn't exist anymore -- and not for quite a while now.
What kind of silly argument is this?
However, they managed to provide other things to the masses, such as laser eye surgery for example, which they also invented. This kind of permanent fix to one's sight is an expensive provilege in capitalist countries. In most such countries not even glasses are covered by private insurances. Their entire business model is based on making profits by avoiding covering people's health expenses as much as possible. Which is why dentists are also not covered in the country, I live (Switzerland), for example. If you don't have the money to pay it, tough luck, you won't get it. In a socialist country everybody gets the threatment, they need, no questions asked.
Yes, the US military did invent the GPS! Look it up if you don't believe me. Without them, releasing it to the public, you wouldn't have legal access to it. When the state is not providing certain services to you in your particular country, it's not because they couldn't do it, but rather because they get lobbied by the rich, to leave as much as possible to the private sector. Noam Chomsky explains pretty well how this is done. Again, most of the services mentioned above get provided in socialist countries for free. Clear proof that public sectors can provide things at least just as well as the private one. I would argue even much better. Artificial scarcity is not a thing in socialism just to name another example.
It doesn't always need a government to make innovations, but historically most major inventions of the last four centuries came from some form of public funding rather than private firms. The latter doesn't even directly seek innovating, since it is costly and risky, which are two things the capitalist system highly descourages.
So please keep your nonesense about incentives to yourself. I won't even get into this now, since my reply is already long enough as is and I wrote it on my phone -- funny. The profit motive is a terrible one.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0