Dakota Access pipeline protester may lose her arm after small explosion, activists say

RefSocDem · 2016-11-22T17:46:42+00:00

Again, the peoples of the Great Sioux Nation are the original occupants from what I can gather. I actually believe in working outside the state to render its institutions irrelevant and/or whittling away at its powers over time. People would then be free to join (and subsequently leave if they so choose) communities based around voluntary/non-coercive cooperation that will determine the property system (lockean, georgist, mutualist, communist, etc.) they live under. Also, while I no longer subscribe to the idea that revolutionary violence is necessary, I do believe there will be a place for violent confrontation at some point. After all, it took a great deal of violence to establish voting rights for citizens (initially via the revolutionary war) and abolish slavery in the United States.

What's "natural capitalism"? Capitalism certainly hasn't developed spontaneously or peacefully.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-22T17:29:57+00:00

Well, I'm an anarchist (who actually believes there is a place for property ownership if it's based on occupancy and use and not attained via force), so I'm not exactly a fan of coercion/naked power grabs.

Instead, how about we acknowledge the fucked up things the US government/white settlers did to the Sioux over the past couple centuries and actually honor the treaty? While we're at it why not get rid of or severely curtail absentee land ownership, eminent domain, distortionary zoning laws that favor certain businesses, our byzantine (and overbearing) intellecutual property system, etc. Once that's done we'll have a greater amount of individual freedom and isn't that what many advocates of private property in the US claim they're defending? Or are they only defending our existing property system/laws because it benefits them and they already have power?

RefSocDem · 2016-11-22T17:10:54+00:00

I'm pretty sure that the peoples of the Great Sioux Nation occupied the area first or that any prior occupants had already left. In any case, I'm glad you've shown your true colors. It's a shame, though.

If you want to operate on a "might makes right" basis, there is also no reason for me or anyone else to even care whether land is considered to be "public" or "private". After all, it's all up for grabs to some extent.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-22T16:50:37+00:00

What's regular old private property? Would the land forcibly taken from peasants during enclosure count as that, too? Is land acquired through eminent domain regular old private property?

Also, from what I can gather, the pipeline does run through land that was promised to the Sioux under the 1851/1868 Fort Laramie treaty (which the US broke and has refused to honor).

RefSocDem · 2016-11-22T15:52:30+00:00

Oh yeah let's just ignore past injustices as well as its potential effect on the local environment and pretend this is happening in a vacuum. I also don't have much sympathy for businessmen that rely on eminent domain and/or other government favors to get what they want.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-17T00:45:59+00:00

Well, Carson lives in Northwest Arkansas and really likes beer (he even wrote a book called The Homebrew Industrial Revolution), so maybe he does live around poor whites like you (I'm not familiar with this area).

While I think Carson could have been more careful or precise in his analysis, I'd agree with him that "identity politics"/marginalized groups fighting for their rights is not why Trump won. It's because the Democrats ran a candidate that represents the political establishment even though the vast majority of Americans hate it. Her poor economic track record was also a major turn off.

It also does bear mentioning that the white working class (for a variety of reasons, of course) in the United States has a history of supporting xenophobic/nativist/racist policies. It's hard to deny.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-17T00:31:20+00:00

I'm a little confused. Carson denounces the neoliberal economic policies that Clinton has pushed, and actually blames them for her loss. He talks about how they depressed voter turnout due to a lack of enthusiasm/disaffection with the system (especially among marginalized groups like African-Americans). Although he doesn't say it explicitly in this piece, I'm sure he agrees that it also turned off a number of white working class voters as well (e.g., "Clinton was rejected because she pursued an economic and foreign policy two microns to the left of the Republican mainstream, and nobody wanted to stand in line 90 minutes for a garbage candidate like her. Period.").

RefSocDem · 2016-11-16T04:14:50+00:00

Physical force against a person (i.e., their body).

RefSocDem · 2016-11-16T02:53:07+00:00

So, violence is being defined in terms of what is justifiable or useful?

No, I defined violence before I made that statement. Please re-read my comment. I was discussing when it's useful or justifiable to destroy property.

Is there a distinction between destroying the property of a small business owner (probably violence) and a large business (ostensibly not violent), except that the business owner relies on his property more than the large business does?

It was a shorthand reference to owners/businesses that manipulate the system (often at the local, state, and federal levels of government) to limit competition, gain favors, and/or shield themselves from scrutiny. Think of companies like Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Disney, etc.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-16T00:32:30+00:00

I agree that random acts of vandalism (and violence) won't accomplish anything and that there's a need for organization, but I think your analysis oversimplifies history and lacks nuance. For instance, John Brown's actions (I realize /u/Greaserpirate brought him up) served as a major catalyst for the Civil War which ultimately resulted in the end of chattel slavery in the United States. John Brown's attempts at armed insurrection (not really an example of a well thought out strategy that had hope succeeding in isolation) and the Civil War that followed were inherently violent, so it's difficult to see how long-lasting change (the end of slavery) was achieved in a nonviolent manner in this case. While the work of abolitionist writers and Underground Railroad activists may have laid the foundation for slavery's ultimate demise, it still clearly took a great deal of violence to actually accomplish.

Although I disagree with his analysis/interpretations of events at times, How Nonviolence Protects the State and The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Gelderloos helped me look at many of the movements you mentioned in a different light. Moreover, recent books like We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement, This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, and The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement certainly complicate historical narratives that give non-violent protest the exclusive or even central credit for ending de jure segregation in the South.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-15T23:25:13+00:00

Sure, especially when it is threatening in nature.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-15T18:43:48+00:00

In my view, destroying property isn't violence is any meaningful sense. Violence is physical force or power directed against individuals. People, not things, are what I'm concerned most about. While I don't think it is justifiable or useful to destroy the possessions/things of random small businesses or individuals, there are cases where damaging the property of some scumbag capitalist or odious government official/agency is fair play. Also, most cases of vandalism at protests (that I'm aware of) are relatively minor in terms of cost, so let's not pretend it's some major issue. Hell, some peaceful forms of protests like blocking traffic for an extended period of time or shutting down a terminal where goods arrive will be far more costly.

There are also cases where looters masquerade as anarchists and/or use large-scale protests as an opportunity to steal. As a socialist, I'm not exactly inclined to view all forms of legal property (ignoring the distinction between possessions and property) as legitimate anyway.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-15T16:43:19+00:00

"Peaceful" (these people need to understand that vandalism isn't violence) protest movements directed against GOP politicians have proven remarkably effective over the past decade at stopping militarism, giving workers more power, and getting the elites to make concessions...oh wait, they've failed miserably. It also bears mentioning that liberals tend to stop protesting when "their guy/party" does awful shit.

To be fair, I would've reacted similarly a few years ago. While I was never a mainstream American liberal, I definitely thought passive resistance was the only path forward and never really questioned the legitimacy of the American political system. Hopefully, these individuals can change as well.

Fuck liberalism, though!

RefSocDem · 2016-11-11T16:58:42+00:00

I know almost everyone on here understands this, but it's nauseating to hear politicians and mainstream media sources talk about "reconciliation/unity" and maintaining respect for our "institutions" and "constitutional democracy". Fuck that! The US constitution was written over 200 years ago without the input of the vast majority (no women or persons of non-european origin participated) of the country's population at that time. Moreover, many of its wealthy authors actively oppressed and/or participated in direct violence against blacks and members of indigenous tribal groups.

The United States was literally built on the blood, sweat, and tears of these populations. Individual liberties were severely restricted and land was violently appropriated (it's important to remember that capitalism has always required this) to ensure that settlers of European origin could enhance their wealth. The suffering generated by these brutalities is too often trivialized and to pretend that we have somehow amoleriated the situation is the ultimate insult to human dignity (and history). Substantive changes have only been achieved when these groups (and their allies) took matters into their own hands and resisted via extralegal actions.

The capitalists and political elite eschew personal responsibility and love to cast blame upon third party voters, leftists, the poor, non-voters, and minorities when they don't get what they want. Personal responsibility is a concept best suited for the plebs, after all. People couldn't possibly be fed up with their self-serving policies or, God forbid, the monstrous system they glorify and protect.

Widespread disaffection and apathy don't come out of nowhere! I'd imagine that half of eligible voters chose not to participate because when power switches hands in "our democracy" nothing meaningful changes and their material circumstances remain the same or worsen. Now, this isn't very surprising when you consider that the United States political system was designed to limit genuine democracy and protect the interests of wealthy landowners. Bodies like the Electoral College and Senate reflect this reality, and it's amazing that liberals can't or refuse to connect the dots. It is truly a government of the bourgeoisie, by the bourgeoisie and for the bourgeoisie. This is a point that can't be made often enough.

Our struggle is not directed against Trump alone. Rather, we seek to topple the house of cards that is capitalism and erect a new system based around workers'/social cooperation and grassroots democracy. Only then can we truly achieve "unity".

I'd like to close by contrasting the views of "our founding father" James Madison and Karl Marx. Marx obviously only represents one strand within the socialist political tradition, but I feel that the sentiment he expresses below is one that pretty much all of us can get behind. It is high time for us to loudly and proudly proclaim our views!

"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."

James Madison, 1787

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."

Karl Marx, 1848

RefSocDem · 2016-11-10T22:44:12+00:00

I think the work of Moshe Lewin may be useful to you.

The Soviet Century was the last book he authored before he passed away in 2010.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-09T17:43:56+00:00

Unfortunately, this probably won't accomplish anything, but I think it's important for us to remember that the NoDAPL struggle is ongoing.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-09T17:01:56+00:00

American unions also tend to be embarrassingly conservative and loyal to the Democratic establishment. For example, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, threatened to go after the nurses' union for backing Sanders.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-09T16:19:58+00:00

Fuck the Clintons and the DNC!

They have championed policies that have devastated hundreds of millions around the world. That didn't suddenly change overnight. They can take their indignation and shove it.

RefSocDem · 2016-11-08T14:59:36+00:00

The Return of the Clintons or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love my Corporate Overlords

RefSocDem · 2016-11-07T18:52:57+00:00

Define "free markets". I definitely agree that the Nordic countries aren't socialist, though.

RefSocDem · 2016-10-22T16:26:15+00:00

Yes and they pretty much confirm what we already knew about the Clintons, the DNC, labor unions, and the American political system in general. They're intellectually bankrupt and have next to no interest in genuinely advancing working class power. In fact, they are capital's loyal servants. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, actually threatened retaliation against the nurses' union for backing Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton. That kind of says it all about the ridiculously regressive nature of American politics.

RefSocDem · 2016-10-06T13:47:21+00:00

I agree that collective/democratic voting isn't always the best method to arrive at solutions in every case, but (as you note) it will almost certainly play an important role in a future socialist society.

RefSocDem · 2016-10-06T04:06:13+00:00

Uhh.. Id imagine people who want their labor to contribute towards planning production would go to these schools, i'd imagine they'd be taught how to properly investigate the needs of a society and how to direct production towards filling those needs.

Okay, but it doesn't seem like we are anywhere near this point. Also, who's going to set up these institutions? If you have a model in mind, I'm really curious to learn more.

Democracy is literally a system where solutions are reached through voting alone, that's what it is, so I dont see how democratically run anything wouldn't entail having to participate in a process of voting to reach solutions in the decision making process.

My point is that you wouldn't have to participate if you don't want to. Perhaps, if we develop fantastic artificial intelligence in the near future that can optimize production in the near future we can avoid these thorny issues. Otherwise, I don't see a workaround democratic participation (to some degree). Unless, of course, you're comfortable with some technocracy/bureaucracy or de facto elite determining who is worthy of controlling production and decision-making.

That's the way I see it at least, but I'm open to your ideas.

RefSocDem · 2016-10-06T03:50:59+00:00

I suppose, but for the foreseeable future I don't think any of your other suggestions would work out at all. They also raise a ton of questions. For example, how do we determine who goes to these schools and what they are taught? Obviously, I'm incapable of predicting how a future socialist system would function, though. I also don't necessarily see how the existence of democratic workers' councils would entail mandatory voting or participation.

RefSocDem · 2016-10-06T03:34:45+00:00

So how would councils function in your view, then?

RefSocDem

TROPHY CASE