#saying that it’s fine to kill people because they aren’t ‘contributing to society’ is fascism and eugenics and holy fuck

[bombsareforbabies]

This is eugenics and ageism. Full stop, this is eugenics and ageism and ableism. Holy fuck, this is some of the most evil shit I’ve read in a while.

[scifimagpie]

Political Oroboros: Why Marx Is Not Enough

First of all, I realise the title of this piece is inflammatory, so let me lay out some caveats.

I am absolutely not conservative. (One of the first things to know about leftist fighting and discussions online is that 'liberal' has two different meanings; the broad sense in which conservative commentators use it, and the more specific and technically correct sense that leftists sometimes use it - as well as the tertiary sense of, "anyone who isn't quite radical enough.') 

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a liberal in the sense of condoning a capitalist system; I do find the most common ground with proponents of democratic socialism. However, some elements of communist ideology do seem solid, although I tend to like many of the ideas I've seen from anarcho-syndicalists more.

Confused by those terms? You're not alone, but some of the hippest trends among the youth of today are not just trap music and street wear - it's political and philosophical discourse. Different streams of communism and anarchism and debating the concepts of idealists through the ages is pretty great, but treating those ideas as a firm road map and, perhaps, the only acceptable solution or map, is not so excellent.

After several weeks of careful surveillance and investigation, I also came to some unsettling and unsavory conclusions.

Source 

There's a weird and disconcerting mix of progressive and regressive ideas in this new wild west of a political movement; using "gay" and "retard" as insults in this year, and talking about second-wave feminist gender concepts (Penis =  man! Vagina = woman! are not scientifically validated ideas anymore, even if they have held sway for a long time) as though they're based on reality is...a special kind of confusing, frankly.  The person mentioned below isn't actually the "leader" of Antifa (antifacism is a general belief and approach, not an organization; the Black Bloc is something different) but the points they're making shouldn't actually have to be made. And yet, here we are. (To clarify: this person's opinion is, as far as I'm concerned, correct, because it's a summary of historical facts.)

We can try to tweak the perspective on things and change the way someone is seen, but facts have this tendency to assert themselves. And when those facts take the form of thousands of dead bodies, politely covering them up or scootching them out of the way is a bit harder. In the case of leaders such as Winston Churchill, it's been easier to laud their successes and forget the death toll because they were victorious, but it doesn't erase his contributions to the Bengal Famine and his decision to test gas weapons on Kurdish villagers. 

Yet even when we debate the value and leadership of dictators, history tends to reassert itself. 

“History isn’t like that. History unravels gently, like an old sweater. It has been patched and darned many times, reknitted to suit different people, shoved in a box under the sink of censorship to be cut up for the dusters of propaganda, yet it always—eventually—manages to spring back into its old familiar shape. History has a habit of changing the people who think they are changing it. History always has a few tricks up its frayed sleeve.”  ― Terry Pratchett, Mort

 Nobody is good enough

Of course, just because someone agrees with history (!) and is willing to unflinchingly consider mass murderers as guilty of their crimes doesn't mean they'll avoid participating in the cannibalistic discussions of leftist politics. A particularly difficult issue has been criticism of the Youtuber Contrapoints, who has both been lauded for her very real effects in de-radicalizing extremists, and criticized for fumbling her way through understanding non-binary genders (and struggling to deal with the flood of online criticism afterwards.) But merely liking a figure who is problematic (or worse, Trash, if they have failed one time too many) can be grounds for a friendship breaking up or the sort of extremely tense, stressful discussion that keeps one awake for hours afterwards.

As I said on Facebook one night, "Whiny comment of the night: it would be easier to unite the left if the radicals weren't so dead-set on everyone just converting to their beliefs as much as possible.And Seems like you can learn about Marxism, cultural history, feminism, and all of that...but it's impossible to unlearn American cultural hegemonic approaches and seeing violence as the default/best option."  But to clarify, this isn't speculation without sourcing. I did a bit of an investigation into a few leftist pages, and it was really unnerving to see the number of pro-gun and "eat the rich" and "fetch the guillotines" sorts of remarks and posters. The thing is, we've all done that dance before, and it's going on in other countries at the moment. Riots and protests are excellent when they work, but sometimes, they don't - and we don't talk about what happens when they don't. 

The risk of small government

At the risk of sounding like a cranky old lady, smaller governments are still governments. People who think some military junta of kids with guns can replace all the architecture and organizational levels of "the state" are welcome to try working in a city planning office as an admin assistant some time. Having done that myself, I would welcome anyone who wants to just replace and rewrite all those land laws, which by the way exist for reasons, to maybe take a civil engineering course or two.

And if you DON'T want to replace all that architecture, just get rid of the bad stuff - congrats, that's actually just reformism, which is still a far cry from "just accepting things the way they are." 

As a fan and casual scholar of cults, I've had many opportunities to see examples of small, ideologically-driven communities turn rotten. Frankly, I wouldn't trust my own town to just secede and govern itself, even though I'm very pleased with our mayor's decisions. I know too much about white people and sociology and Christianity (as well as other religions and groups) to trust that small, self-governing, autonomous groups will be fine on their lonesome. We're kinda in a globalized society with many, many supply chains. If you don't like that, get working on a time machine.

Yet even if one were to travel back in time, we've always had international trade and whatnot, and isolationism has never worked especially well. Also it's how you get fascism in the first place, so...history says it's how you make the exact monster you're trying to fight. Worst of all, these defenses of fascists and murderers do nothing but divide us along sectarian points of conflict. 

Sometimes I worry the Revolution will just be online and never actually get offline

— 🏴🛡Justin🛡🏴 (@sharkle82) July 19, 2019

What do we do? 

Honestly, my approach lately has just been to ignore Leftbook and debate spaces and not engage. Trying to discuss theory and concepts has led to some arguments over the applications of violence that have, honestly, made me stop trusting and just lose certain friends altogether. One otherwise brave and locally committed person said, "violence is neither good nor bad. It's a tool." Although I agree that self-defense actions are not exactly violent, I just don't think we should glorify aggression, or be eager to shed blood. It tends to lead to bad results, and it's uncomfortably similar to the stance we're opposing. My take?

Personally, I don't trust anyone who thinks the problems will all be fixed if we just kill a few of the right people.

The people who sit around day-dreaming about 19th century revolutionaries aren't necessarily the ones helping to, say, actually fight the battles that need fighting here and now. It may seem ridiculous to say, "hey, watch out for this," and also, "but you can basically ignore it," but frankly, that approach has worked extremely well for me in real life. 

The key is this. What do you want to accomplish, in practical terms? Forget about "praxis" and "theory"; what are the concrete, fundamental changes you want to see, and the results you want in society and your community? Every change comes incrementally. Evolution is unavoidable. However, we have an existing system that we can use - and dare I say it, that we can apply our strength to if we're determined enough. 

How to change the world 

Writing actual letters to politicians in my city, province, and country, engaging in the community fight for preservation of a local Safe Consumption Site, signing petitions for various environmental protection causes, and applying pressure to politicians, as well as keeping an eye on actual local white supremacists, fascists, and extremists has done more and had a greater impact than anything in my decade or so of arguing with people on the internet. 

My only regret is that I didn't start using my skills in the real world much, much sooner. It turns out that all the people who insist that those in power won't listen to "us" are, unequivocally, wrong. And while I do have white and cis privilege to thank for some of my results, I would also argue that we on the left must not presume our own helplessness and confine ourselves to training arenas online.  Get out there. Talk to politicians. Stay up to date on the news and follow multiple sources, rather than reading 150-year-old essays. And above all, embrace the power of both individual actions and solidarity. 

I have more to say about this topic, but instead of creating another series, a few essays may be cropping up. Until then, however, I have real work to do, both in the political world and out of it. For one thing, books aren't going to finish themselves! 

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and Max the cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi

[inquisitorhotpants]

So I’ve been thinking about this for a few days.

And the thing that drives the Empire?  

Efficiency.  Ruthless, unforgiving efficiency.  And a lot of things that might be as “ooh progressive” or “ooh softening or nice-ifying the Empire” are nothing but efficiency at work.

Need a massive army AND a defense force?  You make every Imperial a rifleman (so to speak).  Your active duty folks go on the ships, go to outposts, etc.  But obviously, someone has to run things at home.  Boom, those people are your home guard, your home defense.  Keep them trained up, give them gear, and there you go.

Your army can’t be comprised of broke dicks, now can they?  That’s not efficient.  That harms how well you can get the job done.  So since they’re all in the military, they all get standard provided military care.  This of course comes out of their wages in taxes, after all nothing is free and your facilities must be kept up, but they’re still able to maintain health and when they’re called on to serve, they can.  (Malingerers, those that try to fake illness or injury to get out of things?  They are not looked kindly upon.  Everyone pays when a malingerer is found, so malingerers are often caught and punished by their own before it ever gets higher up.  Everyone polices each other, malingerers can’t thrive, resources aren’t wasted.  Efficiency.)

While you are taking money for taxes, people have to be able to eat.  Even in America, the school lunch program was founded because the military was tired of getting malnourished recruits.  Give them enough to live on.  Your military salary if you’re home guard is probably a basic living allowance on top of whatever it is you make doing whatever it is you do.  Everyone can do something.  People can man radios, work as medics, decrypt codes.  Everyone contributes, missions go smoother.

Taxes, well, they’re what make the Empire go ‘round, as it were.  Taxes take care of your government buildings, your transportation system, your military gear.  They take care of your droids, your construction (to a point), all the public areas that contribute to the morale of the people, and while troop welfare is second to mission accomplishment, the two are still intertwined; that is simply the nature of things. 

Your maternity facilities aren’t second rate because second rate facilities and second rate care means a higher mortality rate, and that’s you losing good troops for no reason that advances the Empire’s causes.  Not to mention, women aren’t considered lesser, anyway, so their care isn’t shit on.

Lawlessness gets you nowhere, and even in the game itself there’s a disconnect between what we’re told and what we’re shown.  A quest right in Kaas City tells you that it’s frowned upon for Sith acolytes to run around murdering people in the streets.  None of the Council members you meet are kill-happy murderhoboes.  The guy cackling about his little water poison is stuffed back in a corner of the jungle, poorly dealing with a relatively small uprising.  If laws didn’t matter, why would the Wrath even exist?  Anarchy and chaos are likewise not efficient.  If your Councilors are “constantly dying,” that’s continual upheaval (and literally no way for a government to continue for 1,342 years, but that’s a rant for another day).  While I know there are more, the only Sith I can off the top of my head recall seeing that remotely fit that stereotype was Thana Vesh.  Power plays are one thing - discredit someone, get them shuffled down society’s ladder, that’s fine.  But continual murder?  Not efficient, and not shown to us, anyway (discounting game mechanics, in which the player characters are all sociopathic lunatics murdering everything they come across).

And no, just because these things are considered “progressive” by some real world standards (cause LOL America’s a mess okay, i’d love guaranteed healthcare and a salary), it doesn’t make the Empire “progressive.”  Nothing in here is saying the Empire is without flaws; it has plenty of them.  Ruthless efficiency has the word “ruthless” in it for a reason.  Mission accomplishment superceding troop welfare has consequences.  Authoritarianism is what it is and it has consequences, even if it’s led by a former slave who says, “I’m sick of your shit, you’re going to change or I’m going to smite you.”

But the Empire, by sheer dint of having lasted over a thousand years, has to have something making it function beyond rawr rawr kill kill, and IMO half of the fun of being able to worldbuild something that continually gets lazily handwaved off as “buh buh Nazis” (which, really ... fascism and Nazis aren’t universally interchangeable, sorry) while still having moral and ethical problems is figuring out how it would all work.