The thing is we don't. There is no such thing as free speech, any speech that meaningfully threatens the government will be cracked down on. See Fred Hampton. Free speech is a legal fiction in our country.

But my point is that the limited bourgeois privileges you get don't matter if you're starving on the street. You can't meaningfully have those privileges without economic security.

As for the homeless chap, it depends on their situation. I’d live in a community that would try to help them. I think we’re ethically obligated to help people in need as best we can, but I’m not comfortable using violence to force you to help them.

So it is more violent to take food from a grocery store because that hurts the owners bottom line than it is to prevent a starving man from taking bread from a grocery store by kicking his ass and throwing him in a box? Is that your perspective on this issue?

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I meant that freedom of the press shouldn't be limited to just people that work for CNN or whatever. I don't think they're separate rights. I didn't mean to say they're appropriately implemented.

Theft of small amounts of food isn't really something I care about. I'm not a fan of police or jails/prisons. We can handle these sorts of crimes more ethically. Robberies are a bit different. If you're someone that visits San Francisco to bip cars then goes back home, you could prolly use a good kick or two if you're caught by your intended victim.

Regardless, I think we, as a society, should be there with the bread. It shouldn't be an issue we have to face.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Regardless, I think we, as a society, should be there with the bread. It shouldn’t be an issue we have to face.

But you don't think we should use violence to enforce the idea, so how do you enforce the idea in the transition when former small business tyrants chafe at the idea of sharing? What if they don't submit to nonviolent methods of control?

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They don't have to submit? We do things the right way and don't deal with those cunts. As a gradualist, though, I think we can build up our communities while removing the regulations that enable corporations to operate the way they do while staying profitable.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They don’t have to submit? We do things the right way and don’t deal with those cunts

Okay but they have the means of survival right now. Not seizing them means people will die while you develop your own.

Also, while developing your own, the movement is vulnerable to getting crushed by them. They historically haven't had any compunctions with killing millions to protect themselves from communism.

As a gradualist, though, I think we can build up our communities while removing the regulations that enable corporations to operate the way they do while staying profitable.

How though? Do you think the capitalist state is going to just let you mess with its bosses?

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay but they have the means of survival right now. Not seizing them means people will die while you develop your own.

When I help my sister pay her rent a small business owner isn't being evicted. Economics aren't zero sum.

Also, while developing your own, the movement is vulnerable to getting crushed by them. They historically haven't had any compunctions with killing millions to protect themselves from communism.

I think ideas like collective ownership and mutual aid have power without challenging the ruling class. Instead we beg daddy to give us more rations.

How though? Do you think the capitalist state is going to just let you mess with its bosses?

I don't really have all the answers. I know what I consider ethical and try to work within that, but I'm no genius. I know it's easy to say your answer is violence and we'll sort it out later, but there're a lot of missing steps there. I don't think there's a lot of difference between the class consciousness necessary to achieve a gradualist result vs revolution. Gradualism has time to show people the benefit without lining them up against the wall, tho.

We also live in a world that has a habit of fucking up collectivism. Trade is technology and in a free society we can test the tech and find what works instead of fucking shit up with bullets and famine.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -5 points 11 months ago

When I help my sister pay her rent a small business owner isn’t being evicted. Economics aren’t zero sum.

Can you prevent a landlord from evicting a single mom, when that landlord is willing to use violence to do it, without using violence? Is the idea just "we will pay them all off, using money we definitely have in order to do it?

I think ideas like collective ownership and mutual aid have power without challenging the ruling class.

Then, bluntly, you are ignorant of history. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying you need to actually learn about this stuff before trying to come up with a belief system about it.

Instead we beg daddy to give us more rations.

I dont know what you mean here

I don’t really have all the answers. I know what I consider ethical and try to work within that, but I’m no genius.

You need to consider the impact of your actions in morality, which means understanding what the outcomes of actions have been historically.

know it’s easy to say your answer is violence and we’ll sort it out later, but there’re a lot of missing steps there

That would be an easy and incorrect way of describing my beliefs, yes.

I don’t think there’s a lot of difference between the class consciousness necessary to achieve a gradualist result vs revolution. Gradualism has time to show people the benefit without lining them up against the wall, tho.

I think you haven't thought about the material implications of this. Giving white supremacists and landlords and capitalists time to come around isnt nonviolent, it is permitting violence to continue for a while because you don't want to commit violence on the people doing the violence. It is a statement that you dont want to help the oppressed if it is at the expense of the oppressor.

We also live in a world that has a habit of fucking up collectivism. Trade is technology and in a free society we can test the tech and find what works instead of fucking shit up with bullets and famine

Honestly, I think you've bought into a capitalist framing on the history of transitional states. The USSR had famines during: a bloody Civil War, collectivization, and right after ww2. It notably did not have any periodic famines that the Russian empire previously had. Communist China had a famine after the Civil War before relations were normalized. They notably ended the periodic famines, especially along the yellow river.