Comments

2

leftous wrote (edited )

Refers to the Forgotten soldiers

When Europe went to war the so-called ‘great powers’ took their colonial subjects with them. Hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa and the Pacific were dragged into the conflict with no say in the matter. France mobilized her colonial armies immediately and men from West Africa and North Africa were thrust into in action within days of the start of the war.

French recruitment of West Africans was governed by racial theories that suggested that some Africans were naturally warlike and naturally violent and should, therefore, be used as shock troops, units that took part in the most dangerous aspects of offensive operations and suffered the highest casualty rates.

11

leftous wrote (edited )

I come here precisely because the rest of the internet is full of distractions and feelgood nonsense to keep comfortable westerners complacent.

Though I do agree that people in general could be more relaxed and patient with new people who are unfamiliar with anarchist/leftist spaces. Also I wish the users here would feel more free to share their unfiltered thoughts to generate discussion.

1

leftous wrote (edited )

I really recommend reading bell hooks who emphasizes this welcoming, understanding, and loving approach to feminism.

Feminism is For Everybody: https://libcom.org/files/hooks%20-%20Feminism%20is%20for%20Everybody.pdf (PDF)

Will to Change (my personal favourite):http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=70DAC0ED0FAB9CE1F7AB3CE2BB070784

6

leftous wrote

It is important to understand that men are victims of patriarchy just as women are. But obviously to a lesser degree. In fact, I think men understanding this point is just as crucial to achieving feminist goals as anything.

The reason men are the ones sent off to war is the exact same reason "male privilege" exists. The world, business, war, etc is designed around toxic male traits and these traits being the key to any success in these environments. The model of a successful business has at its head its own authoritarian general that demands absolute obedience and loyalty - as you would see in any army.

3

leftous wrote

Awesome concise article, worth a read. Thanks for sharing, ziq.

Some parts I liked:

The ultimate tool for corporations to sustain a culture of this sort is to develop the 40-hour workweek as the normal lifestyle. Under these working conditions people have to build a life in the evenings and on weekends. This arrangement makes us naturally more inclined to spend heavily on entertainment and conveniences because our free time is so scarce.

..

the 8-hour workday is too profitable for big business, not because of the amount of work people get done in eight hours (the average office worker gets less than three hours of actual work done in 8 hours) but because it makes for such a purchase-happy public. Keeping free time scarce means people pay a lot more for convenience, gratification, and any other relief they can buy. It keeps them watching television, and its commercials. It keeps them unambitious outside of work.

We’ve been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hungry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we don’t have. We buy so much because it always seems like something is still missing.

Western economies, particularly that of the United States, have been built in a very calculated manner on gratification, addiction, and unnecessary spending. We spend to cheer ourselves up, to reward ourselves, to celebrate, to fix problems, to elevate our status, and to alleviate boredom.

..

The perfect customer is dissatisfied but hopeful, uninterested in serious personal development, highly habituated to the television, working full-time, earning a fair amount, indulging during their free time, and somehow just getting by.

I think these are the kind of thoughts that any western worker can relate to, and might be worth sharing with people who are skeptical of anti-work or general anti-consumerist/capitalist thought.

Reply to comment by /u/this_one in Friday Free Talk by /u/ThreadBot

5

leftous wrote (edited )

That sounds rough, and I've actually been there. The only way I was able to get over it was getting them off my mind. I would try to make it a habit to stop visiting it, e.g. by installing a browser redirector (like the one sudo mentions here). I learned the best thing you can do is create space and just work on yourself. Over time, I realized that there wasn't any real (romantic) "love" there, they were just someone strong and independent to latch onto due to my own flaws.

I know how tough it can be, so good luck. :)

5

leftous wrote

This is very insightful, thanks for sharing. Although it will always amaze me how assholes try to rationalize their bigotry and bullying as "concern"; "concern for the obese person", "concern for a strain on healthcare resources", or whatever bullshit excuse they come up with. The evidence has been clear for a while that shaming and being abusive isn't helpful.

1

leftous wrote

A recommendation I've got is Anwar Shaikh who has an entire lecture series on youtube. I heard about him from the leftist youtuber Mexie who covers some of his material in her videos. He also has a book.

Most of it is understandable, but there are times some of the points he makes go over my head. In that case, you might want to watch some of Mexie's videos, which are really well-researched and clear e.g. Monopoly vs Competition, Unions and Work ethic,Finance Crisis and Stagnation. (She includes more resources in the description).

4

leftous wrote

This is beyond sickening.

In wealthy countries, the institutionalisation of children has almost completely stopped. Instead, governments offer services that can help families keep children with them; if that is not possible, they seek adoptive parents or foster families. These solutions are imperfect. Some foster families are abusive; children, especially those most in need of a steady home, can get shuffled from one family to another. “But nobody is advocating going back to institutions,” [..]

Almost every poor country, by contrast, still puts children in institutions, even though the vast majority of those children have families. Wealthy countries, who consider orphanages harmful for their own children, nonetheless provide a stream of charitable giving that makes orphanages viable businesses abroad. And orphanages need “orphans”. Parents may hand over children because they have special needs, or because the family can’t afford to send them to school. “It’s a huge pull factor: if they can get food, health care, education, specialised services, parents make a decision they think is in the best interests of the children,” says Shannon Senefeld, senior vice president for overseas operations at Catholic Relief Services.

..

When volunteers turn up at an orphanage and children run to hug them, it’s understandable that they feel they are providing much-needed love and attention. But children shouldn’t turn to random strangers for affection. When they do, it means they can’t develop healthy attachments. And a parade of short-term adults to hug them makes it worse.

These kids are basically turned into products, at the expense of their psychological and emotional well-being, to sell westerners "feel good" and "meaningful" experiences. Then they get praise and awards for fucking people up and reinforcing the same systems they claim to be helping fight against.

1

leftous wrote

But is the logic wrong or just inconvenient?

It is the same as the logic that says guns cause violence. Social media is like a weapon in the sense that it can exacerbate issues, but I wouldn't call it the cause. The systemic issues that lead to hatefulness, violence, xenophobia, etc will still be present regardless of how regulated Facebook is.

The angling has been going on for a while. But in this case Facebook would serve as a catalyst since it will establish a pretense to crackdown on anybody who dares to "incite" online (however you define that).

1

leftous wrote

I have a few problems with this write up.

Researchers told the Times that Facebook’s algorithm tends to funnel users into like-minded bubbles where they are isolated from moderating influences, leading them to believe that support for violence is more widely shared and accepted than it truly is.

A lot of people use this logic to say sites like Raddle are dangerous.

Also criticisms of "incitement" have been used to attack Palestinians and human rights activists.

My only point here is that this seems less like anti-facebook propaganda, and more like pro-censorship propaganda. There is a push to help governments and corporations have greater justification and power to persecute any resisting voices. This just adds fuel to that fire.