gataloca

joined 1 year ago
[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Sure you can argue that your financial situation is a bit better, but the power dynamics between yourself and owners is still the same regardless if you make a lot or a little and more importantly, salaries change. When your job isn't considered competitive anymore you'll be in the same boat or if you get laid off or you get sick, etc.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Me: "I use Arch btw!"

Still gets shot

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean the difference between them and they employees is that they can sell their restaurant when they want to quit at a good profit while their employees have to leave with only the clothes on their back.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's quite radical. But I agree, speculation is a big problem and dysfunctional.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I think the CCP are just trying to do what they think is best for the welfare of their people.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The Swedish union IF Metal is currently striking on Tesla, and the conflict has resulted in many other unions entering their own strikes targeting Tesla in solidarity. One of them, SEKO which handles deliveries have prevented Tesla from acquiring license plates and they have sued the Swedish government for this because Tesla cannot get their license plates now.

For the other strikers they've used all manner of underhanded tactics to dodge the strike. Scabs, alternative suppliers for foreign countries, etc.

They're fighting tooth and nail against unions. It's disgraceful.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Nationalize your enterprise? Or better yet, convert it to a cooperative and give the profits directly to the employees?

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

That's why they hate things like welfare or full employment. They need a desperate army of reserve labor to keep wages low.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I love this guy! He has made so many more insightful videos about similar topics.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're being melodramatic! As if there's any democracy in parliamentarism anyway! You're basically telling me that people who challenge their society gets arrested and some might die. I don't sympathize with people willing to sacrifice themselves for a state or a nation. That's foolish, especially when this state has been defeated! The geographical location of Ukraine has been Russian for a very long time and I'm curious what you think Ukrainian (as opposed to Russian) culture even is. The state of Ukraine is barely 33 years old! Additionally Russia organizes itself into regions with varying levels of autonomy, sometimes regions with very high autonomy. It's not like a country such as Poland or Czechia where there's little difference between the regions.

You're wrong about the outcome of nuclear war. The only way only Russia is exterminated by nuclear war would be 1) If the US would attack first and 2) If they resign to their fate without retaliating or 3) it happens in your fantasy. 1 and 2 are highly unlikely. 3 is guaranteed but not helpful.

It's true that MLs hate America as it exists right now. Even if you ignore all of the other faults of USA, they're the primary enforcer of capitalism after all. America effectively runs the world, holds the exchange currency of the world, decides international law (especially surrounding the internet and intellectual property) and isn't held accountable by anything or anyone, not even its own citizens. The reason why MLs might support many of Americas enemies is because America decides to be enemies with Marxist-Leninist states. You have to ask yourself how reasonable it is to have a country consistently deciding to make enemies of other countries because they run a different society. Russia however isn't Marxist-Leninist so MLs don't have a stake in defending Russia.

Most people are pawns, not just Ukrainians. Like I said; we're slaves and additionally many are undereducated and uninformed. If people want to truly be their own people they should aspire to break free from capitalist propaganda but many just eat it right up. Even you seem to treat Ukrainians like pawns since you believe that so many will be unable to live in Russia, maybe you should give them more credit than that?

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If defending yourself against a fascist invasion is pro war, so be it. Let me ask you: what the fuck was ukraine supposed to do? Lay down their weapons? Let the orks kill their men, rape their women and children? Should we let countries invade eachother for no fucking reason? Or should we fight back and try our hardest to defeat tyranny?

I wholeheartedly support people seeking to protect their loved ones, but war isn't that. War is when you fight for a capitalist state in order to reach their political goals. That's true both in offense as well as in defense. For Russia that interest is to steal Ukrainian land to reach Putin's flimsy goals, whereas for Ukraine, it's to preserve the independence and integrity of their country. But unless you're looking at something like literal nazis who are looking to exterminate you, then you're not looking at death when you get defeated, you instead have new management. The Ukrainian people doesn't disappear because Ukraine disappears.

The path toward war isn't instant. Ukraine has a history with Russia that can easily put them at odds with Russian interests. Their previous governments understood this and tried to keep a good relationship with Russia. War was the price they had to pay for rejecting Russia and moving closer to Europe and USA. Belarus doesn't have this problem because they managed to collaborate with Russia. In a world where might makes right (like in capitalist worlds), then this is the logical outcome of geopolitical competition. The obvious way to protect the interests of the Ukrainian state would have been to keep the nuclear weapons because then they could at least threaten Russia with nuclear war. That's how geopolitics works in capitalism.

The best way to protect the interest of the people would be to have socialist governments in both countries. Then there would be no need for war.

And once again and I will never stop saying this: ruzzia started this war. Not Ukraine. They are defending themselves. Kremlin always has a choice, for Ukraine, not fighting means certain death. War does not justify any means because there js no justification. Its a brutal invasion.

For Ukraine not fighting means death of the state. You seem to think that Ukrainian state and the people are the same, but they're not. Workers are workers independent of state. We are just slaves to be used by the capitalist states as they wish and we shouldn't be loyal to them just like we should be loyal to our employers. Russia has chosen to use their slaves to invade Ukraine and that most certainly means death and destruction (especially considering how Russia's military has conducted the war) so to end the war is to conclude the war as quickly as possible.

Ukraine can surrender, although I don't think that's a good option. Especially for the sake of setting a precedent in geopolitics since that means that (like you said); it validates the invasion and wars of conquest which is a bad thing and shouldn't be validated.

But once again I will reiterate I don't expect Russia to give up either. The conflict will therefore continue until either Russia decides that they can't fight anymore or Ukraine collapse. The worst case scenario would be if Russia decides to make good on their threats and decide to launch nukes and that might happen if Ukraine becomes seen as a serious threat.

Its his words, not mine. He called it a far right coup backed by US. Both of these are lies.

Yes it is his words, spoken to a specific audience.

He calls it that because he is spouting ruzzian propaganda. Hopefully we could at least agree on that.

If that's the case than that would surprise me. I wonder what stake MLs would have in supporting modern Russia since it's a capitalist dystopia run by oligarchs. Now if it was Soviet propaganda on the other hand, I would understand. That's why I highly doubt your claims of them lying and spouting Russian propaganda, because lying for the sake of Russia doesn't make any sense.

That is a rather big if there buddy. Dylan does give explanation why it wasn’t and if not in this video, he absolutely debunked it in his video about euromaidan. Also he does give counter evidence against the claim that it was backed by US. Did US send its troops? No. Their Diplomats? Their people to protest? No. They were supporting it because they rose up against their former president and in the same way against ruzzia. Obviously US would be happy about it, i am not blind. But there is no evidence for the fact it was “backed” by the us

That's not counter evidence, that's conjecture. You don't have to send troops. Every country will have people to challenge the status quo. It's not like USA sent troops to Al-Quaida or the Lybian rebels or created them from nothing, they were already there! They could support groups with weapons, supplies, communication or training or some other way. Now with that being said, I don't think US armed the rebels or supplied them and I would be surprised if Second Thought are hinting at that. I'm curious myself what they actually are referring to, but I doubt they have actually released a video on the subject. I never came across a video on their main channel about it and I don't want to listen through all of the deprogram either.

You must have misunderstood me then, his videos are on his main channel are not so overt because he hides his true colours.

In this case you must be misunderstanding me. He's open about his biases. They're not exactly hiding that they're all MLs. That's why I said that his stance doesn't seem any different. It's similar talking points, similar rhetoric. Just a different format.

Also I just want to point out that just because I despise ruzzia with every fibre of my being, I do not like the US. They have done some really fucked up things and their domestic politics are awful.

Yes it's terrible that the world has become the plaything of all these large countries USA, Russia and China. I am strictly against USA in its current form as well and I'm also against Putin's Russia. They are two very dangerous countries and it's truly a travesty that they hold the largest nuclear arsenals to subjugate the rest of the world with.

But right now, they support a country that deserves support. I don’t want this war to go on, I really don’t. I love ukranian cities and their people, their beautiful nature and their tasty food. I want to see my ukrainan friends again.

But it was taken, some are dead, some fight as I speak. Hopefully, some day, I’ll be able to hug them somewhere in a Ukranian beach in crimea. That’s all I want.

My personal stance since the conflict began has mostly been speaking in favor of Ukraine and against Russia, even if I am seemingly taken a pro-Russian stance here (I'm not). I don't have a stake either in Russia or Ukraine. They're both capitalist countries who are doing what capitalist countries do. The thing I want to avoid is nuclear armageddon and I certainly dislike USA lording over everything and increasing the risk.

[–] gataloca@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I live next to Ukraine, I have seen the destruction personally, I have lost people I love and see bullshit when it’s there.

Ah you're Polish then I assume? My condolences and I think that maybe that fact makes you quite impartial toward a narrative where Ukraine is seen as the victim, which I agree to, Ukraine IS the victim here.

I agree with your definition of war, never said otherwise.

Yet you're pro-war. So you apparently agree with my definition but are also pro-war. Therefore workers should fight each other if the ends justify the means? Is that right?

Calling euromaidan a “far right coup” is complete lie, it is ruzzian propaganda. Euromaidan was unilateral and supported by left and right. Neonazis joined it, of course as they saw an opportunity. Since then the far right party has been getting less and less support, today being the lowest.

When a ML says "far right", he might mean a neonazi, a conservative or a liberal. On the political scale from that perspective a "centrist" would be a social democrat. However the far right party might stand in polls isn't exactly interesting. If the goal is to make Ukraine compatible with the west like Second Thought claims, then nazi ideology would be counterproductive toward that goal anyway so I'm not sure what you think that proves.

Calling the new government a puppet regime is disingenuous, just like any of his and your claims. First government almost immediately held a public vote, thats how zelenski got into government.

Maybe? I mean if we're supposed to entertain that argument then we could guess that Russia's elections in the regions they conquered also prove that there's a genuine sentiment in breaking off? I don't think so. Election results isn't a sign of consent. I would also like to know why he decides to call it a "puppet regime". At the same time, it's pretty common for MLs to be suspicious of any cooperation with the west. It sounds like something he would have said on his own channel but maybe it greater detail argue why that is the case.

They (USA and EU) did not plan a proxy war. Ruzzia started this war for its own imperial means. That reality was not swept under the rug, its a blatant fucking lie.

Okay and you're sure about this why? In the video Dylan doesn't give any explanation either why he thinks otherwise. If Ukraine really is a puppet state and the protests were backed by USA, maybe that was the plan?

I have to admit that the things you bring up weren't the things I expected you to want to highlight since you seemed to argue that he has a different stance toward the conflict between his own channel and the video you posted, which doesn't seem to be the case. The video you posted of Dylan is just nitpicking on the points presented in the video. Dylan doesn't give his own evidence to his claims and while the burden of proof is on Second Thought it's important to realize that he's talking about this topic to a completely different audience who already are (or at least should be) informed of what he's talking about. He's hardly trying to present a case to convince outsiders, so making a nitpicking video against it is very easy, because the format isn't meant to convince anyone. Why should I be impressed or convinced by Dylan? Come on...

view more: next ›