You must log in or register to comment.
Well the reality is that democracy is a shitty form of government to. So the internet helps fight shitty forms of government. The problem is that the internet doesn’t seem to help provide good alternatives. It is essentially indiscriminate on what replaces the currenty shitty form of government, even if the replacement then restricts the internets ability to fight the new shitty form…
Well, Kraut of all people should know how one can change their mind in the span of a decade.
Context?
Kraut (then Kraut & Te i think) was deep into Gamer Gate and Europe’s far right, a large chunk of his video’s were political commentary. I believe I first learnt of him through the “XY Einzelfall” video by Shaun. One day I read a comment saying Kraut response was pathetic, leading me to a Destiny stream where he defended the map, not believing that all the cases on the map just “magically vanish” under scrutiny. There apparently was a video he made in response too.
You can no longer find the stream or video, the only hint being this reddit post, with one comment mentioning Kraut was on the stream. Kraut rebranded himself and deleted his past videos in the process. This is just hearsay, but I heard he was attacked really hard by the far right after attacking their own for pedophillia. He left political commentary and made history videos instead, though there are still hints of Islamophobia and Racism in his videos, or common jokes just earn more criticism because of his past. I can’t say, I don’t watch them. However he definitely isn’t nearly as much right as he used to be.
I recall watching Kraut’s YouTube channel many many years ago, and I stopped following Kraut when he said “there is no such thing as a war crime.” Justifying a certain action during a war as a necessity is one thing, sometimes there are necessary evils. It wasn’t the particular thing he was justifying that even bothered me so much, but how he justified it. His argument wasn’t even that it was a necessary evil, rather, he straight-up said you should be allowed to do anything you want in war period, there can be no “evil” in war. That just rubbed me the wrong way, assumed he might be a bit off his rocker and stopped following him.
There’s a good retrospective on the mass protest movements of the 2010s called If We Burn. The main takeaway I got was that leaderlessness and horizonalism do not work.
If you don’t pick your leaders, they will pick themselves.
Anarchism is the worst social order, except for all others that have been tried.
Anarchism can’t defend itself. That’s the point. Either it gets coopted and recuperated under capital, or it gets hijacked by reactionary forces for their own purposes.
While Marxism-Leninism gets hijacked by reactionary forces for their own purposes and gets recuperated under capital after that.
The USSR lost the Cold War, but there’s plenty of ML counties still around. I’m sure you’ll whine they aren’t paradises, but they’re all generally progressing and developing in a positive direction (when they aren’t being strangled to death like Cuba)
Not a lot of anarchist spaces by comparison. There’s the Zapatistas and they’re pretty cool, but like, the record is pretty clear.
And before the end of the cold war, USSR was a reactionary country governed by an elite for its own interests. It’s the same in China. The same in Vietnam, the same in Cuba (but at least there they have the excuse of the unjust US politics against them).
Eliminating homelessness, eliminating illiteracy, eliminating hunger, increasing life expectancies, increasing graduation rates, increasing quality of life, actually existing socialist countries accomplish incredible things (some more than others, admittedly). They’re not perfect utopias, but you can’t ignore the context they exist within (i.e. they’re still developing countries and they exist within US global hegemony)
I’m sure you have some specific criticisms of China or Cuba or whatever, but they’re doing pretty fucking good considering what they’re up against.
While you keep on dreaming of utopia, I’m more concerned with defeating than US empire in the real world. Anarchism can’t.
Capitalist countries did the same thing without building walls to stop their population to flee…
I mean, anarchism was the initial state, so it has been tried. It seems that it is not very resilient against being replaced by other systems, so it can’t really be the best system in the real world.
Unlike the resilient anti-capitalism of Marxist states amirite.
It’s almost like you need to learn and evolve from the mistakes of the past to create systems that work in the present.
For example, when white colonizers land on your shores, don’t ignore them and start an escalating series of tribal wars to sell them war-slaves.
Also, maybe don’t have slaves.
See? We’ve already improved on proto-anarchism.
Yes. And by improving and changing the system, it by definition stops being anarchism and becomes something else. Which is what I was saying.
The anarchists love to come out of the woodwork whenever democracy is having a bad day, then they disappear whenever someone mentions medicine being more of a global effort.
Yes, I’m sure an entirely fragmented world full of companies protected by privatized militias would be extremely cooperative, with the added bonus modifier of there being no borders.
They found out how gullable religion has made Americans. They will literally believe anything and fall in line like sheep.
“A Republican would eat a steaming bowl of shit if it meant a liberal had to smell their breath after”
…it has?
I thought countries like China, Iran, India, and Pakistan ban access to social media and the greater internet because of the threat it still poses to information being shared and utilized by common citizens.
I’m fairly certain the flow information still has a net positive despite attempts to crackdown and control online interaction both from corporations and governments.
Pakistan’s PTI is still alive despite being stabbed by the military because they can effectively reach their voterbase via the internet. I don’t think anyone has actually taken a picture or video of Imran Khan ever since he was thrown in jail, yet he is as popular as ever.
Elon Musk happened. Twitter’s staff banned Trump after 2020 elections, but (luke warm take) Musk bought Twitter to reinstate Trump
Musk bought twitter to attack progressives in general. He then used it to empower whoever he wanted, and he saw Trump as a means to an end.
How has it been weaponized against democracy?
It’s still the best way to get info not filtered by MSM. There’s a reason politicians in both parties are calling for increased social media censorship.
Haven’t you heard? Unregulated communication is our biggest threat. It tricked people into voting for the wrong candidate, which proves my point.
Its much more complicated than that, and yes contemporart information sources (i.e., the internet) have absolutely been weaponized by both state (Russia should come to mind) and non-state (say, ISIL, energy companies, etc) actors, as has been detailed in tens of thousands of pages of research and independent analysis focused on digital forensics. And its not just about the content (i.e., the ideological, cognitive apsects). It’s also about control of the infrastructure - think media capture by oligarchs such as Musk or the reverse enginering of social media algorithms by countries like Russia to reach as many people as possible.
I would argue it’s disingenuous to equate the activities of the two American parties in this field. If you were to take a comprehensive look at what they’ve been doing, there is a clear difference in their approach and intent. Where the Democratic Party wants to curtail the influence of foreign authoritarian states and local oligarchs by limiting their ability to spread disinformation, Republicans have been actively undermining these efforts, including by going after US agencies (such as the GEC) and independent researchers at NGOs. Why? Because these agencies and NGOs are exposing their lies and labeling their messages as misleading and dangerous. They are also exposing how aligned the Republics are with foreign authoritarian states.
Granted, I’m a bit biased. I’m one of those researchers. And dealing with SLAPPs and other measures by Republicans and their proxies has been undermining information integrity significantly in the last two years, within and without the US.
You’re absolutely biased, and spreading disinformation of your own. People in the US are much more likely to be subjected to disinformation and propaganda from their own government online than any foreign actor. It’s not even close- we’re being flooded with state propaganda from the US astroturfing farms, compared to a trickle from outside sources.
And it’s false to claim the Democrats are attempting to censor for our well-being. Whenever their activities are revealed in leaks or fulfilled FOIA requests, the vast majority is revealed to be censorship of criticism or dissent, or censoring anyone countering the state narrative. Truth and public good are not on the Dem priority list anymore than it’s on the Republicans’.
And worth noting, these censorship efforts are illegal. This is a crime spree.
It seems I am “absolutely biased” whereas you are clearly absolutely objective. My mistake!
He’s a known russian troll.
They’re not even good at what they’re doing, must be a low level troll :-)
Yeah, just saw all of his “Ukrainians are Nazis” and “Russia great” comments. Talk about irony and self-contradiction - blames the US for censorship, but glorifies the Kremlin which maintains strict control over the internet and legacy outlets in Russia.
It seems some wave throw the ninja from the surfboard, causing him to smash the head against a rock.
Or maybe mediums are inherently neutral?
You think Twitter is inherently neutral right now?
No? Twitter isn’t a medium, it’s a platform.
So your comment was just completely pointless then?
Maybe you don’t understand the point? The post says that internet used to be a force for democracy and is now ‘weaponised’ against it. I’m pointing out that internet itself was never a force and it is silly to try to assign such values to it
I disagree. Few things are truly neutral. What people usually consider neutral is just what’s normal at the time. The structures within which we live and express ourselves are shaped by people and institutions.
I’m not taking about neutral as in in the middle. The medium through which you communicate doesn’t favor any message over any other. So it should only be judged based on how good it is at relaying messages, not who has more access to the medium or what they use it to relay.
It does favor messages over others though. Technically mostly anyone with an internet connection can put something out there, but what actually gets to be seen by many depends largely on the communication infrastructure. Yes, the platforms we use, and who controls them.
People love to talk about how ‘the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots.’
It’s easy to talk about big dramatic battles.
The truth is that it’s really a never-ending struggle that requires sweat.
How many people bother to show up for primary elections? How many are willing to get a petition signed to get a good candidate on the ballot?
if we want a breather we gotta upend the system.
not keep struggling with it.
Let me count the ways that upending the system isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
For the system to be upended in a meaningful way first means you’ve got an organized cadre in place. Savvy political operators who can make things happen.
The Left failed to get past the DNC twice with a popular candidate. The idea that the Left could get past the US Army is ridiculous.
Next, let’s look at what ‘upending the system’ would actually look like. Look at the hyperinflation in Germany after WW1. Or the Depression. Or maybe just the riots of the 1960s. Life isn’t a video game, and when the system fails the most vulnerable people are the ones who suffer the most.
Finally, do you really think that companies like Blackwater are just going to step aside and let themselves be swept away?
If the system goes down, it will be replaced by something much uglier.
none of the examples you came up with have anything to do with a worker revolution. yes, silly, it does takes time. and no, democrats have never been leftists.
do you have an actual idea to save the rest of that broken democracy? because its already being replaced with something uglier. you seem to think fascism is gonna stop itself?
The Left failed to get past the DNC twice with a popular candidate. The idea that the Left could get past the US Army is ridiculous.
cmon, tell me what your idea is for fixing the system that doesnt involve begging the right wing for a candidate nomination.
You’d rather face the US Army then vote for someone endorsed by Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.
Please read some history. Back in the day, Frederick Douglas campaigned for candidates who couldn’t promise to end slavery.
im sure you will have plenty of fascists to root for in 2028, no worries 😂
did the whitewashed history you learned in school include all the genociding you have been doing this last couple of centuries?
I do those things constantly and the fact that other people don’t infuriates me.
It’s like a group project and I’m doing my part but we still all fail because nobody else gives a damn.
I hate democracy and people now.
On one hand I would love to kick the collective ass of all the people who sat the election out.
On the other, I know that I don’t have the power to change things without them.
Back in WW2 a lot of people had to accept that the British, the Soviets, and the Americans were the only thing standing between them and the Axis. They had to give up control of their forces and hope for the best.
The quote is that the tree is “refreshed” with blood, which is an important distinction. Also, Jefferson wrote it after the founding of the US - he understood that our democracy is not an exception to this cycle.
Yes, if we all did our civic duty not just to vote, but to actually inform ourselves about the choices, we’d be able to maintain democracy potentially indefinitely, but the reality is that a huge portion of people are complacent, and won’t take even the simplest of actions until they’re forced to. So, democracy degrades slowly as it’s desperately propped up by the few who understand its importance until it finally fails enough to start really affecting the people who “aren’t really into politics,” by which point its too late to use sweat instead of blood.
We water the tree with the sweat of the few, but when that inevitably isn’t enough and it starts to wither, we refresh it with blood of the many.
Question: What is the mythical height that American “democracy” has degraded from? The country was founded by a bunch of settlers who violently kicked out the people living there. They set up the government and immediately restricted who could vote and how much influence that vote could even have. They kept some people as non-human property. They spent the next ~century arguing about it until it had to fight a war about it and the result was to leave those people being merely treated as sub-human rather than non-human. Moving on to the 20th century, it took movements of labor and minorities that were met with extreme violence to get anywhere and that’s still left us where we are today, begging for crumbs and for police not to just execute people in the streets.
Then of course there’s all the people we invaded or otherwise screwed with who never even got a vote in the first place. Were they not “doing their civic duty?”
America has never been the experiment in democracy it purports itself to be. It’s a nice ideal to strive for, but in order to do that you have to stop pretending and recognize that there’s nothing to protect or repair. Nothing to go back to. Just something we’ve yet to build.
The height was when the vast majority of people understood the importance of informed voting, and did so with pride. We’ve never really been great in any other way, and even back then we weren’t all that great because we kept the right to vote from huge swaths of the people, but democracy functions when people vote, and it fails when they don’t.
Watch the movie ‘Network.’
When it came out it was a cutting edge satire; it’s become a quaint and staid docudrama
I watched it recently and it’s shocking how well it’s held up. Aside from the fashion, it feels like it could have been made last year.
Ok, when was this? I tried looking in to voter turnout rates over time. https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present
As they say in the article, it’s harder to get good estimates of earlier turnout rates, but for the sake of talking about it, lets take for granted that the numbers are in some reasonable ballpark of accuracy.
It looks like turnout tops out at about 80% (presidential elections) of the VEP in the later half of the 19th century. Before this the numbers were even lower than they have been in modern times. This of course was a time when many people could not vote. It was also a period of growing inequality and monopolization. It took 2 major wars, a lot of militant unionizing, and a global financial collapse to end up with the brief period of relative prosperity for specifically white working class men.
Throughout the 20th century though, the numbers pretty consistently dropped to between 50-70% turnout. Throughout a lot of this many people still could not vote, either explicitly or implicitly through Jim Crow laws. Even post-civil rights and voting rights act, prisoners still do not have the right to vote. Considering that we know that the war on drugs was started to pretty specifically target enemies of the state like minorities and hippies, this is a pretty clear attempt to once again implicitly deny certain people the right to vote. So even through multiple slices of the population being eligible to vote over time, we’ve never really had close to a significant portion of the eligible population voting.
This is also only talking about American citizens. Again, a fundamental tenet of democracy is that it only exercises government power over those who have consented to it. US imperialism, starting with the native Americans and African slaves and only expanding from there, has extended the application of that power to countless people around the world who never got a vote on the US fucking with their country and were often denied the opportunity to participate in their own democracies. Taken from this perspective, the majority of people under US rule/influence have NEVER gotten to participate in the “democratic process.”
This is also all before we talk about the ways that the electoral system and government structure was explicitly designed to not allow the popular will to have proportional influence over the government.
The implication of the assertion that “democracy works when people vote” is that the condition of these millions of people who have been systematically denied the right to influence the government that rules over them is their own fault for not voting anyway. It’s simply ahistorical. It’s as much a call to a mythical glorious past that conservatives engage in.
Rights have never and will never be won through the ballot box so long as the US remains a plutocracy. It has always required people to work outside the system and engage with violence, whether they are doing it or it is being done to them.
This history isn’t just some bad stuff that bad people did in the past. They’re the events that created the world we live in today. We aren’t free of their influence and we haven’t even stopped all of them. You can learn from that or you can keep blaming people. You can’t have both and still be honest with yourself.
You seem to be under the impression that I think our democracy somehow makes us superior, or that it functions more often than others, when my point is pretty much the opposite: regardless of the governing system, people will not do enough to avoid a corrupt tyrant of a leader from coming into power, which they will then need to literally fight to overcome.
Rights are not earned through voting, but they are lost due to lack of voting, allowing corrupt leaders to roll back the hard-fought advancements. That’s what the quote means: the tree of liberty is refreshed with blood. White men own slaves? Fight to free them. Only white men can vote? Fight to achieve voting rights for everyone. Those were the times the tree of liberty was refreshed. We’re now seeing these rights called into question because of political leaders that we allowed to be voted in; our rights are slipping due to our insufficient use of the freedoms we fought for, inevitably leading to us needing to fight yet again to refresh them.
If democracy worked unerringly, we’d be more free than ever right now due to the fact that the vast majority of Americans can vote, and while I believe that would be true if everyone did vote, the fact of the matter is that they wont. That allows corrupt leaders to slowly achieve strategic positions in all levels of the government over time, and eventually use their power to bring in the Tyrant mentioned in the quote.
The only people I’m blaming for the regression of our rights and democracy are the tyrants tearing them down. Yes, if we had all voted they never would have gotten the power to do so, but my point has always been that that was never going to happen.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt has entered the chat…
Look up the New Deal. Pretty good blueprint for a place to start.
Refer to my comment bellow for a more expanded discussion, but specifically talking about the New Deal:
-
The voter participation in this period was comparable to what we have today. Minus all the people excluded, but the comment I’m replying to was talking about people deciding to vote, so those without that option, these people aren’t included in the asserted culpability for the success or failure of democracy.
-
The New Deal happened with significant context outside of the electoral system. A massive war with another looming on the horizon. A global financial collapse that threatened to incite people against the ruling class. Militant union organizing against violent state and private repression. The rise of the Soviet Union as a counterweight to capitalist hegemony and an example to show workers what was possible.
-
The goal was to placate workers enough to preserve the power structure. Far from being a democratic revolution, it was a stalling tactic that kept power concentrated and allowed those in power to slowly dismantle outside power structures like unions until such time as they could claw back those gains. The later end of the Keynesian government programs can be better attributed to the weakening of unions than the failure of people to vote or vote correctly at the ballot box. Government policy obviously had a big hand in this attack on unions, but there were also the material factors of automation and globalization that greatly reduced union bargaining power.
The goal was to placate workers enough to preserve the power structure.
Nice revisionism.
There wasn’t any chance of a massive class struggle like the USSR happening. There was more of a chance that the richest would have kicked FDR out and put in their own junta. That attempt only failed because Smedley Butler wasn’t having any.
I was lucky enough to meet some old school Communists who’d been in the Spanish Civil War. They would have laughed at the idea that the US was on the verge of a Socialist takeover in the 1930s.
It certainly wasn’t as extreme or successful as the soviet union, but there was a lot of unionization going on during the industrial revolution that was more radical than the tamer bargaining unions we see in the post-war era. And then the depression happened and things got really bad. It’s not hard to see how elites would have looked out at what was happening in the world, looked at the bad economic situation at home, and concluded that something had to be done.
FDR even said that they were trying to reform capitalism to save it.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Transwiki/American_history_quotes_New_Deal
1933 “It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.” President Roosevelt, on how his emergency actions in 1933 prevented a revolution and saved capitalism.
It certainly wasn’t as extreme or successful as the soviet union,
So we agree that there was no way there was going to be a Socialist uprising in America in the 1930s, which is what you were trying to imply.
Also, the idea that FDR’s plans weren’t radical is ludacris. The only evidence you can come up with is a cloying speech he gave to settle the nerves of people who feared an actual revolution.
-
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
We weren’t vigilant. Quite the opposite, in fact.
reminds me of this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
Note, though, that the Panopticon is also referred to as a “prison design”. So, quite the opposite of “freedom”, depending on how you see it.
In a word, commercialisation.
That’s when they noticed it could be used to topple governments and decided to use selfishly.
amazing how at the drop of a hat the mainstream media will shill for de-anonymizing trolls when someone makes fun of a corrupt politician
Oh so you like the Internet eh?
It’s just a fad, it’ll go away.
I remember when people used to tell me that.
Arab Autumn
Bless the color revolutions! Thanks Facebook and the CIA!
