Impossible to know.
Results 1 to 20 of 28
If the revolution happened today, what issue(s) would need to be prioritized most?
Obviously issues like environmental destruction, economic discrimination, racism, sexism, etc. all need to be dealt with. However, one common opinion is that while all of them need to be addressed, some are more urgent than others. For example, suppose everyone needs a resource to (say, for example a rare earth metal, although that's hypothetical and it could be many things) to live relatively well, but extracting that resource has a huge environmental toll and is economically damaging using current technology. Do you prioritize extraction of that resource for people or the environment? Obviously technology should be improved to make the process more eco-friendly, but in the mean time, how are things to be prioritized? I'm curious to hear what people think about this.
EDIT: You can choose more than one option. Also looks like I put speciesism twice, sorry about that. If you vote for it, just vote for it both times (it obviously wont count for double but will show what percentage actually voted for it that way).
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
Impossible to know.
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
Agreed because we don't know what the conditions will be in the future when/if the revolution happens. But I'm talking about hypothetically if it happened today.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
Btw, if a mod wouldn't mind somehow editing out the 'speciesism' option of the 2 with the lower number of votes, that'd be great, thanks. Again, sorry about that, didn't mean to put it down twice.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
I don't see how anybody could think anything takes priority over "people lacking certain needs" and "environmental destruction".
What the hell is specieism, by the way?
The idea that non-human (sentient) species are things to be used/exploited as commodities and below humans basically, although there are of course varying definitions. People have different views on it on here, that's why I included it. But please, lets not turn this into a debate about veganism or anything, it's irksome when my threads are derailed lol. Anyways, I also chose both of the things you said, although I think specific actions ought to vary on a case by case basis depending on circumstances, levels of severity, etc.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
The fulfillment of the proletarian historical mission; the violent establishment of revolutionary dictatorship to overthrow all the present conditions of production.
The proletarian movement cannot tailor reality to conform to any ideals.
Last edited by Ember Catching; 12th January 2014 at 17:28.
Other than the immediate task of forming the worker's councils, the first thing will be getting necessities to the people who need it....specifically food. This will be an important test for the revolution, because if the people can't eat then the people will be angry.
However, if you can provide enough food for the people, it will help the revolution go a lot smoother in the long run.
"I've never read Marx's Capital, but I've got the marks of capital all over my body." -Big Bill Haywood
"...Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."- Thomas Jefferson
-=UTOPIA IS THE MORAL RIGHT OF HUMANITY=-
It's important to note also I think that usually fighting all of these things at once and prioritizing them equally wouldn't directly conflict. I think obviously that would be best whenever possible. But of course, there are odd situations here and there.
For example, here's another one: There is a debate going on in Australia right now. Aboriginal people there have hunted Dugongs for awhile from what I understand to the point where it's claimed that it's "a part of the culture" (much like the claim Inuits make with seal hunting). However, Dugongs are endangered, largely due to these hunters. So there's controversy over whether they should be allowed to be hunted by Aboriginals there "as part of their native culture", or whether it should be stopped. I think it should obviously be put to an end, especially due to the endangered status of these animals, but whether Aboriginals could hunt them or not you could make an argument for either "perpetuation of environmental destruction" or "forced Westernization upon natives and institutional racism."
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
We have to be careful with how we approach uncontacted tribes or those that are on the periphery of civilization. It is important not to romanticize them and not to defend their less agreeable practices, even if you feel that it makes us "racist".
I don't have a problem with meat-eating or hunting myself (for food, not for sport), so I don't care about the dugongs. But it would be a shame for them to go extinct. Maybe you can have a quota system in place or get some into zoos.
Yes, if you fetishize workers' councils in abstraction from their historical context and consider revolution a question of organizational form rather than a question of historical socioeconomic content — a content which can only be expressed by the one communist Party — then of course this appears as a priority.
The great irony in a democratist's fear of upsetting the toiling masses is not lost on me.
Last edited by Ember Catching; 12th January 2014 at 17:27.
Yeah I'm personally not of the opinion that it constitutes racism to put an end to slaughter of Dugongs, just trying to provide an example where no matter what the decision someone might be of the opinion that some type of discrimination is being ignored (although, again, I don't see it as racism personally).
There's already too few of them to have much of a reasonable 'quota' system, since even smaller takes can adversely impact their populations. Also, assurance populations in captivity wouldn't do much good if the creatures couldn't serve their ecological purpose in the wild without being hunted, although I appreciate what you're getting at - assurance populations are often very necessary.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Where is the "Stalin vs. Trotsky" option?
BANS GOT YOU PARANOID? I MADE A GROUP FOR YOU! http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1349 NOW OPEN FOR EVERYBODY!!!
"Think for yourself; question authority." - Timothy Lenin
They're all interconnected and you can't really have one without the other.
For example: if everybody needs access to resources, that means everybody, including trans* persons, women, people who live in Asia, and people in wheel chairs. And in order to get all of those people those resources (especially in the long term), you're going to have to fix the factory farm bullshit and stop destroying the environment that we need to live in. In fact, most of that will be taken care of simply by getting rid of the corporations who do all of that shit.
The idea that we can have a real left-wing revolution that is still exclusionary and still attain what we want to attain is ridiculous anyway. How are you supposed to have a classless society in which X group of people is a minority? This is another one of those questions that seems to be looking for a problem or a reason to get people arguing about something that we don't need to argue about.
I voted other because I didn't see 'People lacking certain necessities'. The foremost objective is developing presently underdeveloped regions as sustainable as possible. Provide housing, foodstuffs, sanitation, and some basic healthcare. The underused application of mass recycling as a source for raw materials as a sort of "aboveground mines" need to implemented as fast as possible for the purposes of material development, social well-being, and ecological sustainability.
pew pew pew
People "discriminating" against animals.
animals are people too they would say.
I voted for people lacking necessity's (i assume this means access to medicine and clean drinking water and shelter) and environmental destruction.
Another thing i would prioritize even above that is the survival of the revolution against counter revolutionary elements.
The forms of discrimination are important to fight but i think that with the end of the capitalist system a lot of that would diminish anyway since the proles are no longer competing against one another.
And that public opinion would be far less tolerant of such things then it is today.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Why is classism of all things not on the list?
I think food, water, shelter, medical aid, etc. would be the first issues that would be need to be addressed the most, post-class war.
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
I assume because with the abolition of classes there cannot be classism.
I voted the bottom two options, because all issues need to be attacked as much as possible, I don't feel that any of them can come without the other.
Last edited by BIXX; 10th January 2014 at 20:42. Reason: Forgot something
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
