topa

topa wrote (edited )

exploitation in the global south is fine because those people have no other options for work, so it's a net positive.

The global north continuously plunders and kills the global south, that what underdevelopment is, and it is purposeful. Resources going from the global south to the global north are vastly more than the other way around, and that is becauase of colonial relationships. So exploiting their labour because of no options for work must be understood in terms where both the exploitation and the no options for work are direclty because of past and continued colonial practices.

capitalism and the profit incentive are the only way to organize an economy that works.

Capitalism doesn't work, it is destroying the world. What more is to say here?

a communal system would never work on a large scale. (because...)

yes, decentralisation implies that no scale is necessary. But whether things 'work' or not is irrelevant. Anarchy is better because the world is better in any increment closer we get to it. We don't have to arrive there to get its benefits.

people are inherently self-interested and greedy.

three complementing answers here:

  • humans are fundamentally plastic, they are constituted mentally by their surroundings. our surroundings are capitalism, which makes people selfish. Different arrangements of society would produce different types of human
  • even if people were inherently self-interested and greedy in a bad way (i.e. getting profit), that's all the more reasons to have a way of relating that prevents self-interestedness and greed who are the most self-interested and greed from being effective. i.e. anarchy
  • self-interest and greed can be good things, if one sees one's wellbeing as bound up in the well-being of others, then self-interestedness leads to mutual aid. And if one greedily wants freedom, the same. If self-interest and greed is built around the notion of getting money, it's no wonder these things seem bad.
3

topa wrote

I understood what you were saying in the first place, repeating it isn't going to make a difference.

I'm yet to meet someone overconcerned with veganism who isn't underconcerned with racism, so it's not just that your ideas as presented here are thoughtless.

−1

topa wrote

Some of the stuff on this forum lately has been embarrassing and you all should consider trying to develop in some other directions, put some fucking effort in before you grace us with individual "car windshield genocide"

what makes something shocking is the sets of prohibitions in a culture, so you are diluting the meaning of serial killer even as you try to weaponise it. all you get out of this is that similarly thoughtless people are going to nod along

language of absolution is weird religious shit, no surprise in this context

1

topa wrote

I think it depends on what are the predictable upcoming problems with climate change.

I ask these questions where I am sometimes:

If climate change is going to destroy the indigenous plant life in 30 years, what kinds of plants would be good there?

even more specifically,
Are there invasive food plants that could relate well to expected climate changes?

I would be interested to know what better questions there are to ask.

3

topa OP wrote

Reply to Addicted to Losing by topa

In what follows, we wish to clarify the ground upon which the standpoint of Black counter-insurgency rests, the set of beliefs and assumptions that allow it to reproduce itself. Why is the notion that racialized people need masters so easily swallowed, even by so-called radicals? How do we injure the stupidity that is spread by this idea, this ongoing perception of people of color as unsuited to the task of ending the world? In today’s movements and organizing spaces, the reign of white supremacy is nourished by the paternal concern for the welfare of people of color, an insidious apparatus that works to attenuate our militancy by instilling in us feelings of inferiority and dependency. Our task therefore is twofold: not only must we confront racist repression at the hands of police in our streets, but also the fluid web of social control that extends beyond that terrain into our own social and political circles. In seeking answers to these questions, our aim is to make way for more unruly and ungrateful black and brown insurgents, a specter feared by both whites and non-whites alike.

1

topa wrote

but if that's the concern then I won't post anymore

Not saying that this is what you are doing, but just wanted to mention that this type of phrase is congruent with what manipulative people say. Overblowing your response to having been accused of something, overaccepting your badness, so that people feel compelled to say things like "you're not that bad obvs you don't have to leave" type thing.

−2