30
31

Socialism, Gender Equality and Social Ecology in the Mountains of Kurdistan - Seems like the Kurds have very similar values to Cascadia. What are your thoughts? (kurdishquestion.com)

EraOfEcology が 投稿

全 141 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]d0tGeorge 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only troubling thing about this movement for the Kurds is the fact that they are positioned in a very violent and volatile region of the world. When the Kurds are threatened they raise up courage and face their enemies. I commend these pacifists for not just running from their land but standing and fighting for it in the face of terror and horror.

[–]willowgardener 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I heard about this recently! Hopefully they can keep up the social innovations and peaceful attitude and not devolve into power struggles and ego trips like so many social movements do

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (118子コメント)

Woah, keep your socialism to yourself.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (69子コメント)

The KCK are libertarian socialism, not the authoritarian variety. Personal property is respected, while productive enterprise is put under the democratic control of citizens assemblies to meet the needs of the community as a whole.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (68子コメント)

All forms of socialism are authoritarian. Private property is the same as possession, individuals made the machines, plowed the fields, etc. Capitalist production is just as beneficial, if not more, as communal forms of production.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (67子コメント)

Capitalism is authoritarian, as it creates a class system and destroys the Earth. Why are you even in this movement?

[–]Osego8 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Capitalism is authoritarian, as it creates a class system and destroys the Earth.

Socialist countries have some of the worst class systems in history. Why should I care if a CEO makes $10 million if I have a good life?

Why are you even in this movement?

Well you clearly want this movement to die. r/cascadia has become just another liberal circle jerk.

[–]AkiraZXEOlympic Empire 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, you're not the only guy here who's very existence in this movement has been questioned for not being far enough left. This is coming from somebody who is about as left as you can reasonably get without getting tangled in the iron curtain. The left has developed a serious superiority complex and Cascadia will never work until it gets sorted out and we spend more time working on issues in a realistic way than jerking about our position on them.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well you clearly want this movement to die.

If this movement isn't opposed to capitalism, it will not confront the ecological destruction affecting our bioregion and the world today, and won't be much of a movement at all.

[–]Osego8 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

You don't need to get rid of capitalism to protect the environment.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

You do, actually.

[–]Osego8 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Having regulations against harming the environment isn't socialism.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Actually existing capitalism relies on the concept of infinite growth, and as such is intrinsically incompatible with the idea of ecological limits to the Earth.

[–]PresidentCleveland -2ポイント-1ポイント  (57子コメント)

Cascadia as a free independent country isn't a "movement". Cascadia being its own nation is politically neutral. Capitalism is just individuals, with sovereignty over their own lives, trading with other sovereign individuals. There are no classes, all that thinking is divisive against the real enemy, the state. There are no limiting factors to socialism, so the socialist state would in fact destroy the Earth at a much faster rate than capitalism ever could.

[–]MacThuleWashington 13ポイント14ポイント  (34子コメント)

Capitalism and Socialism can both be used and abused by authoritarians. Neither is inherently authoritarian, but power-hungry individuals will wear whatever mask best suits their purpose in a situation.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Btw, should you still seek a system where you have to work to earn things, but DON'T want to be exploited, might i suggest reading into mutualism?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

[–]autowikibot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mutualism (economic theory):

Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility". Mutualism originated from the writings of philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

Image i

Relevant: Cost the limit of price | Voluntary Socialism | Mutual savings bank

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Call Me

[–]thevraptorWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

From what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong), is that mutualism is a form of anarchism that mainly represents a free market in which a trade of goods or services replaces currency.

I think we should move away from any form of anarchism, yet still try to maintain a functional and fair governmental system. Also, some form of currency might be necessary, but we should avoid a government-controlled one. Maybe some kind of cryptocurrency?

[–]thevraptorWashington 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is true. The reality is that no economic theory is completely authoritarian-proof, but some make it harder for them than others.

I am not a socialist nor am I a capitalist, fyi, so please don't kill me.

[–]MacThuleWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree, generally - it's unlikely that every economic system is equally difficult to corrupt.

In discussion of toeholds of authoritarianism, I personally think that the system of governance is more worthy of attention than the approach to production and trade. I believe that the more authoritarian a state becomes, the more authoritarian its economic policy will become. Whether a ruling class chooses to define its economic values as primarily arising from one theory or another is, in my mind, of only superficial importance.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I would argue that while markets are neutral, capitalism, (private ownership of means of production or natural reasources) IS inheriantly authoritarian. Privately owned companies are very much top-down orginizations, with those at the bottom having little to no say in the company that provides them their means of survival by way of wages.

[–]MacThuleWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A capitalist system does not force private companies to organize themselves in a top-down fashion, it only permits this - equally as readily as it permits bottom-up organization. The concept of capitalism is not constrained by the economic practices of countries currently claiming (and sometimes even pretending) to be capitalist. No more so than the USSR was anything remotely close to an authentic communist system.

The fundamental principal of capitalism is liberty. Particularly the liberty of private individuals to trade with anyone in any way, and to organize business with anyone in any way - without special license or permissions from state authorities. Capitalism is literally a description for any/every economic arrangement wherein government/rulers/public authorities are restrained from applying their authority to business and trade.

Where in practice we see a propensity towards top-down organizations in self-purported capitalist states, it is not the direct result of allowing the people freedom to do business without state interference, it is in fact the opposite. It is the result of statutory monopolies, of subsidy schemes, of state interference with unionization of workers, and other forms of state interference. Thwarting unions is the opposite of capitalism, regardless of what corrupted politicians proposing such policies might claim. Are not unions themselves, in fact, businesses?

Capitalism is inherently libertarian, liberty of the people in their conduct of business - not authority over the people in their conduct of business - is the root of the practice the word was coined to describe. Not ten thousand authoritarian politicians falsely purporting themselves to be capitalist can make it otherwise.

Now if you were to say something like "most economic arrangements which today claim to be capitalist are inherently authoritarian" I would agree with you 100%. I cannot agree with a complete redefinition of a very fine concept in governance though.

EDIT: grammar

[–]PresidentCleveland -4ポイント-3ポイント  (26子コメント)

Socialism is inherently authoritarian, because it always has some degree of democracy, democracy being nothing but the majority oppressing the minority. As all individuals are always a minority, socialism would oppression everyone, including those that happen to be in any given majority, because the individual doesn't actually want what the majority rule represents. As an example, there is no one Democrat that really wants everything that Obama is doing.

But I do agree with you. Any system can be gamed if their is the possibility of control backing it up.

[–]TheChokeColumbia Basin 0ポイント1ポイント  (19子コメント)

Are you implying that socialism is authoritarian because it is rule by minority?

Serious question here, are you an Anarchist? There is literally zero governments that are not ruled by minority by your definition.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Please, don't compare him with anarchists, they're anti-capitalism too. Objectivist maybe.

[–]TheChokeColumbia Basin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's an anarcho-capitalist as I suspected. That is a thing.

[–]MacThuleWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

wait, so you're saying that anarchist are for government control of business?

i'm confused. who exactly do you believe - in a functional anarchy or minarchy - would build trains & rails for public transport, for example? either this is done by private citizens organizing the business of public transport amongst themselves under their own rule or it is done a public authority of some form organizing the business of public transport for the people, non? perhaps there is a 3rd option i am missing.

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am an anarchist. Pacifist anarchno capitalist.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Socialism and democracy is rule by majority. I said that exact statement above.

Yes, I'm an anarchist, that's obvious. Governments are ruled by the army, which is the most populist organization possible.

[–]MacThuleWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Socialism is not a form of governance, it is an economic system.

It is capable of being implemented as a self-managed economy independent of any requirement for the existence a governing body.

[–]MacThuleWashington -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

I have serious objections to the lack of accountability democratic governance creates in practice, especially in large nation-states where transparency about the legitimacy of the voting process itself is deeply lacking, but I have even more serious objections to some of your basic assumptions.

First; you seem to think that socialism has something to do with democracy, which leads me to suggest you do a bit of reading up - in Wikipedia or some other qualified encyclopedia or source of factual information - because it does not. Even that assumption (democracy=socialism) would be very confusing were it not for Second; you segue from discussing democracy and majority rule to talking about a specific political party, that has only existed in the past century or so, in one country (The US Democratic Party) but happens to have named itself something that looks/sounds an awful lot like the word we use to describe political systems where the governed have some degree of control over their governors (democracy). The two aren't inherently connected even except that The US Democratic Party operates inside a political system that happens to present itself as being democratic.

Of course both of these objections together lead me to believe that your knowledge of democracy, authoritarianism, capitalism, and socialism are primarily informed by contemporary TV & radio personalities, rather than a thorough and considered study of what these words and concepts mean independently, their histories and their evolutions. I could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time - but that's what I'm getting from your statement that socialism=democracy=oppression that segues immediately into a little partisan jab at some politician currently in office today in your own nation (an inveterately imperialist, plutocratic aristocracy which happens to rank pretty poorly in measures of both authentic socialism AND authentic capitalism, and is really a rather undemocratic democracy compared to many others currently operating).

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yea I know what socialism is. I used that example as an example, that even those in the majority decision don't really agree it. I could just as easily used the example that no one Republican truly supported what Bush was doing. This is a classic socialist response, all criticism must only come from ignorance.

Yea you're wrong. This is another classic socialist response, that criticism is just repeating uninformed sources. "You only watch Fox news!" I wasn't making a "little partisan jab", the Republican and Democrats are equally socialist and tyrannical. Socialism is the democratic control of the economy, the collective control of all property. This is what a state is, it claims ownership of all the property in any given area, its the military occupation of a nation, the military being the most democratic organization possible. The socialist commonwealth is militant patriotism, just by a different name. I'm not going to the play that asinine "but its defined as this" game, I'm discussing principles, what socialism would really be like, how it would really function, and how the current states are socialism but with limited powers.

[–]MacThuleWashington -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

The military is "the most democratic organization possible"? Really?

At this point either you're trolling, or you're not speaking any of the languages I understand.

Either way... peace. No point in trying to talk to someone who insists words cannot have agreed upon definitions and wants to call anything any other word they need to in order to be right.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (21子コメント)

That's not what capitalism is at all. That's just a market which will exist in any society, whether capitalist or socialist. Capitalism is the acquisition of private property and capital for profit. And yes, capitalism creates classes. Capitalism could not function if there was not an under class that in order to survive had to sell its labour power to the employing class.

And its a joke you say that socialism has no limits, when you can clearly see the enormous increase in ecological destruction that has begun since we entered the era of neoliberalism. Notably, greenhouse gas emissions have sky rocketed since the 70s, to the point that now it poses and existential threat to all life on Earth.

[–]SenatorSampsonite 3ポイント4ポイント  (17子コメント)

I think we have actually cleaned the northwest up a bit since the 70s.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (16子コメント)

That's not what I said, so don't detract from the conversation. Since the 70s there have been an increase in greenhouse gasses unprecedented in human history. This is comparable to the Permian-Triassic extinction event in terms of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the root of this problem is capitalism.

Capitalism is a cancer that poses an existential threat to the entire planet.

[–]SenatorSampsonite 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Oh, the way you said it, it just sounded like global warming was a notable example of ecological destruction since the 70s. My bad. Also, I don't know if I am a capitalist or a socialist, but I sure am an optimist! I think things are going to turn out just fine, so long as we don't let wackos like the two of you anywhere near the controls.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I want a world that is democratic, libertarian, and lives within the ecological limits of the Earth. I'm not sure how that makes me “wacko".

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

How am I a wacky? You can live your life how you want, I will not intervene in anyway.

[–]PresidentCleveland -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Capitalism and the rational price system is the only way to counteract global warming. Only with massive industrial systems of clean up can we reverse climate change. We need to make terraforming into an industry, desalinating ocean water and transporting it into the deserts to create jungles where there were none before. We need more forests, more capitalism, not less.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

No matter how much evidence you're presented with that capitalism is destroying the planet, the only answer in your my mind to our ecological crisis is more capitalism. Your conviction in the capitalist system is theistic.

[–]PresidentCleveland -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Markets can only exist with capitalist property norms. A socialist free market would be irrational, producers and consumers would be the same thus prices would be distorted. People should own the fruits of their labor, they should be free to trade how they want, contract how they want, cooperate how they want, etc. If leads to contracts that simulate current statist forms of private property, so be it, because without state interference possession and private property are exactly the same thing. I could go out into the woods and make a drill press, neither the state nor the social collective have any right to my labor. Classes as popularized by socialist thinkers in fact do not exist, if any class system exists its the warrior class (the state) and the slave class (everyone else). Because ultimately all current claims to property come from the state, they can exercise their rights how they please, thus all property is property of the state. The state is what keeps people from moving out into the woods and starting their own farms, business, houses, etc, not capitalism. In stateless capitalism everyone would have equal freedom of opportunity. There still is and will always be enormous parts of the Earth that are left unharnessed, rational human development will always be a better stewardship than dumb chance.

In capitalism products are only produced when there is a demand for their consumption. A tree is only cut down when someone is willing to buy it. There is no limiting to socialism, the collective will just keep voting to cut down and burn trees till there are none left. True advanced technology has increased the rate at which we harness natural resources, but as in the past, when a natural resource runs out we start replenishing it artificially. When food ran out we made we planted farms, when we started running out of trees we planted new forests, when we run out of fish we'll start reseeding the oceans, and so on.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

A market is where goods and services are exchanged, and that happens in any society, so its clear you don't know what you're talking about. I have no interest in continuing this debate, because its clear that capitalism is a theistic belief to you.

And you're ignoring my point about capitalism destroying the Earth.

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you really think that socialism won't lead to more consumption, than you're the one that's part of a religion.

I'm not ignoring that point, I addressed it quite clearly. Socialism doesn't have a mechanism for failure, while capitalism does. As things get worse, socialism would just keep voting to do bad stuff, while capitalism would find profits in cleaning up the Earth. You're conflating correlation and causation. If the economic systems most dominate since the Industrial Revolution had been socialistic rather than capitalistic, the ecology of the Earth would be much, much worse.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 4ポイント5ポイント  (32子コメント)

Keep your capitalism to yourself then. It's what brought us the likes of shell and Nestlé.

[–]Osego8 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (22子コメント)

Guess you prefer Stalin and Mao.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington -5ポイント-4ポイント  (21子コメント)

The people who took backwater countries and made them into superpowers vs the system that has kept billions in unending poverty and economic slavery? No question.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you going to spout something about purges and gulags? Try the largest percentage of prisoners per capita, widespread wage slavery and systemic police violence. Communism may have dangers, but capitalism is certian failure.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually, I was going to spout something about pogroms and cultural revolutions...

It's worth noting, that Russia, was hardly a "backwater" at the turn of the 1900's. It was a major european power. China, despite decades of colonial erosion of it's sovereignty was again, still a large regional power. It wasn't until Japan invaded that things really got bad.

[–]thevraptorWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Dude, they killed millions of their own kind. How can you justify that?

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not. But I think it's a lazy argument to ignore all the death and suffering caused by capitalism. How many people has the US killed or caused the death of in just the post 9-11 era?

[–]Osego8 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

The people who took backwater countries and made them into superpowers

That's what capitalism, businesses, and free enterprise have done.

Stalin and Mao killed tens of millions of their own people and they were still undeveloped countries. I'm not surprised that a socialist is ok with that, but I don't want that in Cascadia. I'd rather live a comfortable life of capitalism than serfdom under socialism.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington -2ポイント-1ポイント  (15子コメント)

You have it backwards. Serfdom is what capitalism is built on. Don't be one of fool who deludes yourself into thinking you'll be the boss, rather than the slave.

Do you know what socialism did in north america? Better wages, safe working conditions and 40 hour work weeks.

[–]Longarm_alchemistWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

and it would have been a 30 hour work week and 3 months paid vacation until the corporate (read capitalist) lobbyist pressured Taft and FDR into "compromising".

Here are Links http://oldmagazinearticles.com/birth-of-minimum-wage-laws#.VYeNf0b23IW

http://www.alternet.org/labor/when-america-came-close-establishing-30-hour-workweek

http://www.thegrindstone.com/2011/05/31/career-management/the-history-of-paid-vacation-while-europe-evolved-america-fell-flat/

[–]Osego8 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

You feel like a slave right now? Really? Why don't you ask anyone living in China or who grew up in the Soviet Union who they think has a better life.

Under capitalism, you don't need to be the boss to have a good life. Under socialism you are in poverty unless you're in the top 1%.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

I do actually. Stuck working jobs where i have no say in the operation of the company, working for a tiny fraction of what my labor is worth, just to survive, while a tiny portion of the population reaps the vast majority of the profit.

I live in a nation where the only two choices for those who represent me in government are picked by that tiny portion, and that same pack of economic aristocrats write the laws for their puppets to pass. I do NOT have a comfortable life, and i am sick of being exploited.

So keep dreaming the dream of being the master, but not everyone lives the life of slight privilege you do.

[–]Osego8 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

So keep dreaming the dream of being the master, but not everyone lives the life of slight privilege you do.

There it is.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yup. The reason you defend the sick system of capitalism. You are the dog that gets the scraps. Most of us don't even get that much.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

if your labor is so valuable, why not start your own company? It's really easy to get your business license in WA, it costs $20 and you can do it online.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/business/

If you want, I'll even send you $20 to cover the licensing fee. Consider it paying it forward. If you need a city business license, I'll pass the hat around and see about paying that too.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because i don't have any means of production. Right now, i am, in fact developing something i hope to use to become self employed. But that takes time, and i have to survive until then. That aside, not everyone has that capability.

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Henry Ford is who created the 40 hour work week. Better wages and safe working conditions are just as advantageous to capitalists to workers.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh really? Then why are so many big businesses screaming about raising the minimum wage? If it was to their advantage to pay better, surely they'd have done so by now?

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Many businesses do support the minimum wage. Big businesses support it because its a way of stifling competition, new companies can't afford to pay those higher wages. A company like McDonald's supports higher minimum wage, because they can afford to invest in automation, while smaller burger places would go out of business because of higher labor costs. Also remember, its something like 1% or less of the work force that works for minimum wage, most jobs pay more, and companies have to keep increasing wages to keep skilled workers.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Czarist Russia was the forth largest economy in the world. They had auto and airplane industries. If WW1 hadn't happened, it would have surpassed Germany in less ten years. The government was becoming increasingly liberal, its not a big leap to say Russia would just be become another liberal democracy like the how the rest of Europe went.

Mao was just another warlord, who embraced marxism to legitimize his thuggery, bringing more into his army. Maoist China was as close as we've ever gotten to true Hell on Earth, one where the followers gleefully marched to their starvations.

Yea, the US prison system is bad, because capitalism, but not for the reason you might think. All states are equally bad. The state is a parasite on the economy. The US state is enabled by its economy, because its the freest and biggest in all of history, the economies produces lots of stuff the state can seize to use for their goals. The USSR economy, or the Brazilian, whatever, aren't as free and powerful as the US's economy, so those respective states aren't as tyrannical as they might want to be. The US government is the worst, more evil government in all of history, because of capitalism, but only because capitalism produces so much wealth it enables a powerful state to form.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Parallel voluntary systems is most desirable. Everyone does there own thing. All the problems with capitalism are created by state creating barriers to competition, which helps the state because there are less business to have to control.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

How can everyone 'do their own thing' when all the resources needed to survive are owned by a small minority, and they demand that you create MORE wealth for them before you can have what you need for survival?

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

Why would they be owned by a small minority? Who creates titles and maintains them? Who creates all the money? Who does everyone pay taxes to? Cascadia is a lush country, all of the states (do we count northern Cali?) are barely occupied, if the federal government had no power over us, everyone could move out into the wood and start their own manors.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

And then the ecosystem would collapse because there'd be no woods left.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

That doesn't follow at all. Why would the consumption of wood go up? If public lands were privatized, there would be more attention to forestry, people maintaining their own property. More work to preventing forest fires, more destruction of invasive species, and so on. If everyone just clear cut their land, then the price of wood would pulpit, thus taking away the incentive to clear cut the land. I've said this in another comment here, the best thing about capitalism is it has mechanisms to stop irrational economic decisions, a tree is only cut down because someone will buy it. And more demand means more production. The problem is, because of state regulation, we're forced to still be in the hunter gatherer for some very important resources, such as fresh water, trees, fish, etc.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Take a look at how much of the forests of the PNW are privately owned... Wyerhauser owns a fucking lot of property up here, they grow trees to cut them down, and plant new ones..

We can all take issue with how they manage the lands, and whether they spray for weeds after a cut, however thing is, they grow more forest than nature would otherwise.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh yea, that's my point exactly. And growing forest where there we none, and could be none, is how we reserve climate change. The deserts of Eastern Washington should be one massive cannabis farm.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hope you're going to sequester all that carbon mister...

[–]Osego8 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

There are plenty of anti-socialist Cascadians, and if r/Cascadia keeps endorsing socialism it'll never be united.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Right, so the majority of us need to put aside our convictions and cede more ground to the right, so you can turn us into another Tea Party. /s

[–]Osego8 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's not what I'm saying. Cascadia needs to be more politically neutral, not far left. Otherwise it'll never gain traction.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I disagree. I think people are growing increasingly discontent with capitalism, and climate change will contribute greatly to this. I believe the Kurdish system provides the best way to go about building an anti-capitalist revolution.

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're growing increasingly discontent with capitalism, because you've deluded yourself with lies. Socialism would increase the rate of climate change.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What good are we if we stand for nothing?

[–]PresidentCleveland 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Separation from the federal government isn't nothing.

[–]AkiraZXEOlympic Empire 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You know what will never help Cascadia? That sort of melodramatic bullshit where you turn anything right of the absolute far left into some kind of far-right bogeyman.

I hope you realize it drives people away. People who otherwise would have been on your side. I stopped calling myself a leftist a long time ago because nobody on this side of the fence can get off their high horse and act like an intelligent being and not a prehistoric tribal.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

If we sacrifice our position in the name of broad appeal, we're worthless. If you want to go start another movement that fits your vision, go right ahead.

[–]AkiraZXEOlympic Empire 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not saying to give up your position, I'm saying to stop being a fucking ass about it. Don't resort to hyperbole and mockery, especially to people that you should be working with. You're not better than anyone else for your political position, so don't act like it. If the people of Cascadia can't do that, then what right do they have to govern themselves? If you can't cooperate, communicate, and understand, you're worthless no matter what ideals you hold.

Also, it's not your movement to decide whose vision is the most correct. There's not a single political ideology that owns the Cascadian name, so don't act like it.

[–]PresidentCleveland -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, you should put aside your conviction to rule over other people.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Would you be willing to settle on anti-captialism? I can totally accept an anarchist or mutualist society. But I joined the movement because i was sick of capitalism, it's destruction of democracy, it's continued destruction of the biosphere, and it's unending exploitation of the vast majority of society. I'd rather see Cascadia fail than live in a capitalist Cascadia doomed to repeat the mistakes of the US and Canada.

[–]PresidentCleveland 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Agreed. The goal should be less authority, not more.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Okay. So let's end the authority over reasources, not just politics.

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People should have control over their own body, their own life. It follows that one should should have power over their own labor, and the fruits of that labor. We should have authority over our own lives and what we create with those lives.

[–]Osego8 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

socialism

Kurdistan and Cascadia have one thing in common, they'll never be countries.

[–]SnohoSalish Sea Ecoregion 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

lol

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You say that like it's a bad thing. Perhaps we need to move away from the Westphalian model of nation states.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The world is already going that way... DAESH (the arabic name for ISIS), the Kurdish republics are already moving in that direction, one could even argue the FARC and tamil tigers set the model for this 20 years ago.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you knew about current events, you would know the Kurds have given up the model of the nation state.

[–]Osego8 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That was the point of my comment.

[–]PresidentCleveland -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Cascadia will be a nation or a country, not a state.

[–]aeromechanicalaceWashington 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Care to explain the difference?

[–]PresidentCleveland 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A nation or a country is just a regional identity, where people say they live. A state is the government in control of that region.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

So this is rather interesting in what it doesn't mention. While I certainly concede that the similarity between the kurdish regions (of iraq, turkey, iran and syria) have much in common with cascadia, the PKK is only one political faction, granted one of the largest in the border region of turkey.

If you really want to put this into perspective, take a look at a map:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1634181,41.2421352,8z

Now find Kobani, the place where Daesh got their asses handed to them by the kurds, now measure how far that is to the mountains of kurdistan.

The PKK is a terrorist group, they've been bombing and killing people in Turkey since WW2, and largely the turks have been winning that war until the no-fly zone was established by the US after the first gulf war, as the Baathists were essentially running a genocide campaign against the Kurds.

Over-all, this article is showing a lot of selection bias towards kurdistan as a socialist enviro-utopia. They still drill, extract and sell oil, they still mine minerals, and they still have a functioning capitalist economy. The main difference is, this group "in the mountains of kurdistan" lives in an area that's so rich in natural resources, that they can live this way.

As far as the parallels, Kurdistan, as we now know it is largely as a result of the failure of the Iraqi government to control itself. It's been too busy corrupting itself with a system of patronage among the shiites in the south, and essentially delegitimizing itself as it alienates the sunni majority in the country, this is part of the reason Daesh has been as successful as it has, and Iraq will probably break itself up into Kurdistan, The Islamic State, with the southern part of the country being annexed by Iran.

While we can cluck our tongues and give approval of the social system setup by a minority group, that limited to a region in a distant country, over-all I think we're being entirely tone deaf to the larger situation in this region of the world.

[–]flintsparc 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

they've been bombing and killing people in Turkey since WW2

The PKK didn't exist until November 27, 1978. The folks involved started on the project in the early 1970s. Abdullah Öcalan wasn't even born until 1948 and he had to do some growing up before he got involved with politics.

the turks have been winning that war until the no-fly zone was established by the US after the first gulf war, as the Baathists were essentially running a genocide campaign against the Kurds.

The Turkish army went into Iraq after the PKK in 1997 long after the establishment of the Gulf War no-fly zones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdish_Civil_War#Turkish_intervention

The armed conflict between the PKK and the state of Turkey declined with the capture of Ocalan in 1999. In 2002, the PKK didn't launch a single attack against the state of Turkey. Ocalan and the PKK's politics changed towards Democratic Confederalism at that time. Since that time it has declared a number of unilateral cease-fires.

Your confusion, ignorance or distortion of some basic details here does not fill me with confidence that you are knowledgeable about "the larger situation in this region or the world."

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

My apologies if I distorted anything. I willingly admit to not being authoritative on the specific politics of this region, there's much I am still learning.

What remains is that the PKK is still listed as a terrorist organization. Even if the US is largely acting as an airforce for the PKK at the moment. One of the ways the conflict between the PKK and Turkey has complicated matters, when Kobane was under assault, it would be easy to move supplies and troops across turkey where they would not be attacked by Daesh, however the turks were so hostile to having PKK in their territory, moving reinforcements in required diplomatic intervention from the west.

[–]flintsparc 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sure, its listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. It didn't get that designation until 2004, which was Turkey's price to join the U.S. war on terror. And, the U.S. specifically is not calling the YPG/YPJ/PYD terrorist so it can keep giving them air support.

The designation itself is entirely political. Politics change. They are changing. Obviously.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Zero Argument.

The interesting thing is the YPG is technically listed as a US ally at the moment, there are more than a few expats over there fighting for/with YPG against Daesh.

[–]flintsparc 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The AKP also likes to say that the HDP is terrorist and is the same as the PKK (and it said the same thing about one of the HDP's predecessors the BDP). Yet, HDP crossed the electoral threshold, has 80 members in parliament, 6+ million votes, and very large electoral majorities in Turkish Kurdistan. It also cost AKP its majority government.

So things are changing. Erdogan may decide to double down on repressing Kurds (and that seems to be the way he is leaning), but doing so or even invading Rojava would probably be disastrous.

Anyway, Democratic Confederalism being the ideology of the PKK, the PYD/YPG/YPJ and the HDP--certainly shows it a powerful force in an extremely troubled area of the world.

Far more influential than whatever Cascadian separatists have been up to.

[–]EraOfEcology[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

They still drill, extract and sell oil, they still mine minerals, and they still have a functioning capitalist economy.

You're only partially correct. They do still drill, extract, and sell oil, but that needs to be looked at in the context of poverty and civil war. Oil is one of the few resources in Rojava that is extremely abundant, and given the war effort right now, its extraction is quite literally a question of survival or not. We can look just a bit North of Rojava to the Kurdish regions of Turkey and see that there is an intent to live ecologically with the Earth. We do need to look at their actions in the context of them doing what they need to do to survive during a war. Not doing so would be the height of Western privilege (i.e. the privilege of being able to cast these judgements while not being situated in a war zone where IS, the Ba'athists, and AKP is trying to genocide you).

And as I said, you're only partially correct about the functioning capitalist economy. Rojava currently has what they call a threefold economy. There is a community economy grounded in cooperatives, socialism, and self-sufficiency. There is also a war economy, where efforts are made to finance the war. And lastly there is an open economy, which is intended to foster investment in the region. To quote one of the Rojava Kurds themselves:

If we get no opening to the outside world, our economy will stay the same, and there will be no development. But we need outside investment. To organize it, the government has passed a law called “open economy” to organize it. Any outside investor would have to respect the [community] economy.

Overall, it's important to look at the events in Rojava as transitional, happening in the context of possibly the worst civil war in the world right now, and having to take into consideration the very survival of those living in Rojava. That is, Rojava must balance their ecological convictions with what is required to literally survive.

The PKK is a terrorist group, they've been bombing and killing people in Turkey since WW2, and largely the turks have been winning that war until the no-fly zone was established by the US after the first gulf war, as the Baathists were essentially running a genocide campaign against the Kurds.

The Turkish government has also been complicit in genociding the Kurdish people, an act that continues to this date through policies of cultural erasure and displacement. There is a long history of this, in fact. If we are to say that the PKK is a terrorist group, then we must also say that the Turkish government is a terrorist group. The PKK originated as an organisation of an oppressed people for militant struggle for freedom against genocide and displacement. It's very important to look at the Turkey-PKK conflict in this context, or else you lose a lot of very important context.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not making judgements against the kurds, anything but. I'm dealing strictly in facts, the PKK is listed as a terrorist group by interpol and the state dept. And don't go thinking I'm sympathetic to the turks, they are essentially providing the logistics train for Daesh, while denying their airspace to coalition aircraft, so all air support is flying out of the gulf, over a thousand miles away from where that ordnance might be used.

My main point is this, Rojava is not all Kurds, this is a situation that is far more complex than even I can understand, and I'm a policy wonk.

What is happening over there is less civil war, and more birth of a nation, it's a mix of 5-way conflict, that's being conducted for a mix of sectarian, economic, nationalistic, and other reasons. As much as I support the kurds, these are dangerous times, and depending how much you support them, you can easily run afoul of the state department if you do much more than talk about it, even then, that's no guarantee.

[–]flintsparc 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, Rojava is not all Kurds. In particular, the PYD has made an effort to include Arabs and Syriacs into both the political administration in Jazeera canton--Tev-Dem--and in the military--YPG/YPJ/HXP and the ongoing alliance of Borkan al-Firat (Euphrates Volcano) in Kobane canton that was so important in recent liberation of Tel Abyad. They are particularly close with the Shammar Arab tribe.

[–]sixthcolumnistState of Jefferson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here you go... http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/pkkistan-brought-to-you-by-american-close-air-support/