What is a Wrecker according to Hexbear mods?

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 15 hours ago

What is a Wrecker according to Hexbear mods?

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 11 hours ago

Ok, fair, so what is the end goal here?

Tear everything down and then build up what? If it isn’t another Democracy (I mean a political system in which voting and representation dictates who has power), then I am not interested. Why have a revolution under a fascist dictator if you are just going to get another fascist dictator or maybe a non-fascist dictator?

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · edit-2 10 hours ago

See, this is part of the problem; you have a very shallow understanding of the material realities of the places you are implicitly criticizing. You also have a very narrow view of what “Democracy” is and how it should function, as well as a very misguided definition of Fascism. This kind of muddying of terms is what leads to conflict. When two people attempt to communicate in what is obviously the same language, yet there is a discrepancy between the depth of understanding of the words and concepts being used, it can become nearly impossible to effectively communicate.

If you want to get a primer on the world view, a go-to suggestion is always Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (about a two-hour read). Though you could also read something like The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels, Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein, or Why Marxism? By R. Day for something more modern. If you do not want to read, that’s fine. I’d suggest Michael Parenti’s “Yellow Parenti” Speech

The reality is, our current systems and institutions are hardly Democratic. This was designed from the onset by the founding fathers, the landed class of colonial settlers, but I won’t speak for the likes of John Adams; I’ll let him speak for himself:

May 26, 1776

It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the [agreement] of the people, but to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must [agree] to every act of legislation?..

Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who [are poor and do not own property], are also [unfamiliar] with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? …Few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest.

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open [such a] source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to [change] the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a [dime], will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and [surrender] all ranks, to one common level.

From the onset, all voting rights beyond rights for the propertied class of America were won through struggle and concession, often violent struggle. We live in a class society, where one class dictates to the other how life will be and how things are going to work. Only through struggle against the propertied class has the working class gained anything. If you want a little taste of what I’m talking about every day, check out A People’s Calendar. All states are a form of dictatorship because all states uphold class society; it is which class uses their dictatorial powers that must be changed.

The institutions you hold so close could even remain intact. A four year voting cycle, even with an electoral college and a supreme court, the only thing that would change is which class is deciding which people fill those roles and to whom their activity benefits.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 8 hours ago

How about this I was talking with someone else from Hexbear.

According to them, the plan is to get rid of Capital. Once that is out of the picture Democracy is good. Do you agree with that position? I have no problems getting rid of capitalism.

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · 8 hours ago

Good, so that begs two questions:

How do you think you get rid of Capitalism?
Once you get rid of it, how so you defend against its reimplementation?

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 7 hours ago

Ahh, now we getting to it!

How do you think you get rid of Capitalism?

Well there are 3 ways I can think of.

Violent Revolution
Peaceful Revolution
Vote it out.

If I had a magic wand, I would do 2. Given I don’t have a magic wand. I think given our current, material conditions, I would shoot for 3. Finally, I think, if all else fails, I would join in 1.

Now I am familiar with the problems of 3. You really need to have a voting population who is on it. In it to win it. Understand politics. That is a very big ask, and I am not sure we got it. Also the longer we sit in 3. The more people suffer though this fascist situation we have. So that is pretty horrible. On the plus side, maybe if we sit long enough in 3, 2 will happen, but there is no guarantee.

So I find this a hard question to answer, it requires a crystal ball. I don’t know how many lives would be harmed in either direction. If I knew I would pick the direction with the least amount of violence towards the least amount of people.

Once you get rid of it, how so you defend against its reimplementation?

If you are talking about have some kind of democratic or representative system. You would need to propagandize that this system that no longer exists is bad and we shouldn’t try to re-implement it. Bad actors will be pushing for it.

Otherwise you could go the authoritarian rout and somehow keep that out, but kings fell to Capitalism before.

So it is hard. I don’t really have a good answer here either. My though would be to kick the can down the road. I will try to get rid of Capitalism with my generation, how to keep it dead, that is a future generations problem.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 9 hours ago

I think you have confused my pro Democracy stance for a pro US right now Democracy stance so this doesn’t really address my post.

RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net · edit-2 7 hours ago

Again this is the problem, you can’t separate the then from the now, that’s not how history works. The democracy you support isn’t different then the democracy that exists “right now”. The foundations of the democracy you support creates the conditions for the democracy you don’t support now. They are linked through the development of history and through the crisis of Capitalism. There is no returning to some idealized version of American democracy that you support because it doesn’t exist. It only exists in your mind, as a figment of your imagination, built from the memories of times where “politics” didn’t impact your life. For millions of Americans, this is the America they know and have always known.

deaf_fish@midwest.social · 7 hours ago

I think what I am trying to get at, is that if I was in charge and had to not be in charge soon magically. I would choose a democracy. I would get rid of first past the post, the electoral college, and the two party system. I would try to create a fair and equitable society.

As I understand history the original decision for the electoral college was due to people in charge thinking that not everyone’s vote should be held with the same weight. This is not something that I believe.

Now in my new country, could people vote back in the electoral collage and first past the post, sure, but there isn’t much you can do about that without causing other problems.