nickwitha_k (he/him)

  • 5 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 16th, 2023


  • To me, “apartheid South African emerald mine owner” appears to mean that the mine was in South Africa. It does have a bit of ambiguity. I think that it’s important to provide enough detail to make the scope of exploitation involved clear. Sometimes it can be simple, like “sweatshop” but, in this case, Musk has invested a lot of energy into his myth of a “self-made” man, especially in suppression of the origins of his wealth that it behooves use of done specificity to demonstrate how rotten even his origins were.

  • I’ll keep correcting this when I see it. There was no Musk-owned, South African Apartheid emerald mine.

    It was a mine in Zambia. A completely different exploited African nation. And Musk was only about to afford it because, as a wealthy white man in South Africa benefiting from Apartheid, he had a private plane that he traded for a share in the mine.

    The “self-made” man got rich because of colonial exploitation in two African nations. Not just the one.

  • Holy fuck! That’s not the fucking point! The time to end up with a finished product is the fucking same no matter how much people are getting paid! Your screws and nails don’t go in any faster! You can’t type faster than your fastest typing speed! You can’t call more than one client at a time! You’re just paid more but the work isn’t accomplished faster!

    That’s really not correct. Like, what you are saying here:

    Your screws and nails don’t go in any faster!

    is literally contradictory to reality.

    Automation and technological advances literally make work more productive. A carpenter getting a share of the value of their labor that is both keeping pace with inflation and productivity would mean that they can invest in newer tools and equipment that can allow them to accomplish more in a safer manner in a shorter time. They could, for example, purchase a cordless framing nailer and spare batteries, eliminating the need to setup a workplace generator and pneumatic compressor, which would need to be moved periodically as they work. It also eliminates the hose as a potential workplace tripping hazard. Assistive robotic exoskeletons increase carry capacity while reducing strain on joints, reducing likelihood of injury while increasing efficiency.

    You can’t type faster than your fastest typing speed!

    But you can automate repetitive tasks, allowing more to be done in the same amount of time. More resources allow one to invest in their own or others’ knowledge to accomplish that.

    You can’t call more than one client at a time!

    This is true. But how many calls or meetings really are needed and can’t be sorted via email or Slack?

    You’re so blinded by rich people that you’re unable to analyze the rest of the issue!

    I think that you may be projecting a bit here. I’m just tired of the bleeding of the working class that has been actively in progress in the West for the last half century at least. I’m happy to dig into the slews of data showing how and why people are worse off than their ancestors and where that money has been going (spoiler: the wealthy have been hoarding it and continue to insatiably claw back more via price gouging and wage theft).

  • Rich people disappear, wealth is redistributed, somehow you guys think that building a house will suddenly take less work hours than it does at the moment? No it won’t, construction workers will be paid more to work just as many hours building that house, they won’t suddenly work 20h/week.

    Probably a bad example. The wealthy are the cause of fewer houses being built than are needed to maintain the surplus allowing reasonable pricing in the market. And it is being done primarily to extract more money from people without actually producing anything. So, that house would actually get built and probably to better standards than are currently seen with the efforts to maximize profit.

  • First, please clarify what sort of non-ad monetization you are talking about.

    Second, we don’t need monetization. The commercialization of the Web, while handy for a while, is exactly why it’s decayed so much. We don’t need to import the cause of web rot here.

    Unfortunately, Content Creator is not likely a solid long-term career. Don’t take this as dismissive of the effort that goes into quality videos. Some people really do treat it legitimately as a craft. However, the vocation was basically created through heavy subsidies from tech/ad companies, trying to get eyes on the ad space that they want to sell. Due to Chicago School economics (line must go up), and the fact that there is only so much ad space, tech companies are going to look to remove the cost of these subsidies, likely through a combination of generated content and removal of payouts, so that myopic investors can be happy.

    So, how can you support yourself while still creating videos, etc? Well, if you don’t have a production company supporting you, you’ll need to learn business yourself or sell your talent to someone who is running a production company. As much as I would like for people to be able to do whatever they want with their lives, we’re currently stuck in a neoliberal hellscape where a working artist has to work and also be a business person.

  • If the corpse wins, we wont even know who the president is.

    Incorrect. That’s already accounted for in most circumstances:

    • Candidate dies or is incapacitated before party convention: The convention decides the party’s candidate.

    • Candidate dies or is incapacitated before election day: The party selects a replacement.

    • Candidate dies before the Electoral College meets: The only exception at this time. Some states would need to hold emergency legislature sessions to amend their laws to allow their electors to vote. Others will mainly be assigned to the running mate.

    • Candidate dies or is incapacitated before Inauguration Day: This is very clearly established in the 20th Amendment. The running mate/VP takes over and selects their new VP.

    Just because it hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean that noone has prepared for the possibility.

  • I’m admittedly not as optimistic when it comes to positive change through electoralism, to me, it is much more about postponing negative change. But it is a tool in the toolkit

    Exactly. I, myself, do not think that electoralism is the only tool needed for positive change. It is like a gauze pad in a first aid kit. It is primarily used for treating wounds and trying to staunch bleeding. There are a lot of other tools available, some of them very much overlooked. Yes, there’s direct action and protests but there’s also community building, education, and kindness. The latter three, I find, are frequently overlooked, due to the lack of immediate return.

    Spanish anarchists participated in elections to explicitly get the huge amount of political prisoners freed in the preludes to the Spanish Civil War, a conscious decision where they, as an organised group, pressured the republican forces to give in to their demands. That’s also an example of where not voting can be a valid tactic - if you actually have a large, organised group of people that is able to use it as a means to pressure concrete government actions.

    Again, a lot of agreement with you there. Context and data are critical. Without the right context (which I’m not aware of existing anywhere in the West at this time), not voting is, by the data, completely ineffectual at creating change. That’s why things like community building and interpersonal diplomacy are so vital. That’s also why there have been such concerted efforts against Leftism, intentional communities, etc for the last half-century.

    Granted, I am too disillusioned to be an anarchist.

    I deal with that, like I dealt with my depression; developing near-pathological optimism as a coping mechanism. Also, with radical acceptance. I know that the changes that I would like to see and world that I would like to live in is not achievable in my lifetime. Maybe if we had healthy generational power transfers but, at least in the US, that’s a bit of a pipedream and patience is required. My ideals are a “North Star” to guide my actions when attempting to make long-term changes to society (if something good can happen overnight, it can be taken away just as quickly).

    I worked within anarchist groups in the past and my personal experience has been, that they are maybe a bit too idealistic and loyal to principles instead of practicality. Finding consensus, in my experience, led to a whole slew of psychological dynamics within the discussions. Stuff like people feeling pressured to give up their own position, later regretting it, charismatic “leaders” de-facto still taking over discussions, and it being very vulnerable to inducing gridlock on purpose by bad-faith actors.

    This has been a huge problem over here. Both intentional bad actors and those that have the same impact due to ignorance or short-sightedness.

    Also, the idea of changing the minds of a vast amount of the population, instead of being willing to take power if necessary, is something I encountered a lot, and I simply don’t agree with, especially in light of how the present and future look.

    This one hits me hard too. I’m a “no first strikes” pacifist. I wasn’t always but learning about the histories of peoples that have suffered far more than most of my ancestors pushed me there. My allegiance is to humanity, not ideology. Is violence necessary to protect and defend? Sometimes, like with slavers and fascists. However, I do see a lot of people, especially online MLs, that are chomping at the bit for it, without regards to the fact that violence itself causes harm but just to the recipient, but also the perpetrator and society at large (see: Ireland and Algeria).

    That all being said, in my experience anarchists are at least more open to study and learn with a proper, reflective mind, while many MLs I met treat their own position as a holy, unshakable truth, which in my opinion, goes against everything the Marxist project has been about. They unironically talk about scientific Marxism, while treating it as a religion, it can be quite tiring in my opinion.

    Yes! It is good to see that others, especially a communist, have found a similar pattern of behavior. You cannot have dialectics without making everything open to analysis, including ideology and recorded history. I received a ban from an ML-moderated comm a while back by suggesting further analysis of the motivations and historical context of the Finns and the alliances formed in the wars that they fought during WW2 (maybe invading a country that has a history of centuries of repression at the hands of the Russian Empire wasn’t a good way to win over its people). Not to mention suggesting any leaders of historical communist countries or movements may not have always been in the right or had the best of intentions (they really didn’t like that). Not being able to examine and analyize the pillars of one’s ideology with any depth or criticality without being excommunicated puts it solidly in “religion” territory.

    No matter what side we are on when it comes to how we see ourselves - good luck to you too, and most of all, good luck to all proletarians worldwide. We are all gonna need it in the decades to come.

    The same to yourself! And absolutely, again, no matter what happens in the coming years, I wish there best of Luck to our fellow people (sure, maybe we’ll have artificial prolitarians that need our help too at some stage) and hope that we’re able to lay the foundations for a world where they have no need of Luck.