No seriously where are they?

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 16 hours ago
[–] 47 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    JSO announced that they were ending operating in March 2025.

    My theory about why Hexbear hated JSO is that it's like looking into a mirror. JSO were publicly perceived as annoying and cringe, but let's be honest the public would perceive hexbear posters in the same way. (You can include me as being considered annoying and cringe, if you like.) The public criticized JSO for having ambiguous gender presentation and for being opposed to cars. These are both traits of the average Hexbear poster. (I'm not agreeing with the public opinion. I support ambiguous gender presentations.)

    There was a moral panic about throwing soup on paintings, as if there was any real intended harm to the painting. In interviews, JSO said that they only targetted paintings that they knew were behind glass. They never caused any real harm to artwork like reactionary outrage merchants pretended.

    Even if you say their methods are ineffective, compare 'gluing yourself to the road' to the people who treat posting on twitter or discord as a form of activism.

    Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action are both british activist organizations. I would speculate that there is an overlap in membership between the two orgs and that as legal pressure increased on Palestine Action, Just Stop Oil protestors felt that they needed to shift their efforts to something else.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 20 hours ago

    People hated Just Stop Oil here because they were funded by billionaires and did large pointless publicity stunts that didn't actually further their cause or change anything, they were the epitome of empty liberal protest.

    Palestine Action actively puts their lives on the line to destroy factories providing arms to Israel.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago

    they threw shade at anything besides peaceful protest, proclaiming the virtues of western civil disobedience vs the orient's regimes. i may be paraphrasing but given that until their sanctimonious half measures forced the government crackdown on inconvenient protests they ticked all of the boxes for empire compatible westoid liberals. you should be able to understand hexbear's reaction from that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    What should they be celebrating? Did oil stop?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago
    [–] [S] 11 points 1 day ago (19 children)

    I was going to write like a lengthy response detailing what I meant by this, but I was mostly curious if they have politically advanced and dropped the Anti-Authoritarian rhetoric, but it doesn't seem like it.

    Just stop, someone else will build an alternative. How? Dunno, that's Authoritarian.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (18 children)

    "Authoritarian" is a slippery word, but "decentralized and human-scaled" is a lot more applicable to what we need.

    It really doesn't take much energy to provide humans with their essential needs. With good urban design, each person in cooler climates only requires about two tons of firewood per year for heating and cooking, the equivalent of a small fraction of an acre of pollarded trees. In temperate zones you can supply a city of up to about 200k people just from polycultures and agroforestry within easy biking distance (5 miles from the edge of town).

    Most consumer goods get replaced within 1-2 years, promptly becoming trash. Much of the discourse behind "productive forces", that does not specify what specifically is happening to improve quality of life, is just replicating the paradigm of overconsumption that we have been in since the 1910s. Pursuing a consumer goods economy, instead of building things to last and to be recycled or composted at end-of-life, is presuming a path of ecological devastation.

    Keeping the means of existence easily understood and accessible and replicable is the most assured way of checking the power of the bourgeoisie and building a counter-power against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago* (8 children)

    decentralized and human-scaled" is a lot more applicable to what we need.

    No it isn't. We need a democratic centralized party structure and large scale organization. Only hardcore disciplined communism can defeat capitalism. You couldn't be more off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    We need a democratic centralized party structure

    What is your sample size for making that conclusion, and how many variables are you correcting for?

    I'm going to leave aside the last 50 years of history of DemCent parties, because there are no lasting victories to point to in that period.

    Only hardcore disciplined communism can defeat capitalism.

    There is nothing that says that hardcore disciplined communism means "you have to report up the chain of command just like in a monarchist/capitalist army" or "you shouldn't be able to converse with your fellow cadres from other divisions without approval or oversight of upper management". In fact, being adapted to the local conditions, and being able to organically build power starting from a household or neighborhood level is extremely important for being a disciplined communist.

    If you don't believe in decentralization, why are you posting on an instance of Lemmy, instead of assembling a clandestine organization to seize the structure of Reddit, or to make an armed coup that takes control of Reddit and puts it in the People's hands?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 day ago* (6 children)

    What is your sample size for making that conclusion, and how many variables are you correcting for?

    the entirety of the modern age of human history, all attempted and sucessful revolutions and seizing of power (here, successful is defined by: Seized power away from the bourgeois class and held it for more than, say a year).

    I'm going to leave aside the last 50 years of history of DemCent parties, because there are no lasting victories to point to in that period.

    DPRK, Cuba, China, Vietnam, the USSR, over 50 revolutions that took power throughout the world for at least a year. Whereas non-dem cent parties have never once enacted a revolution or taken power from the bourgeois in any long term, large scale way in human history.

    There is nothing that says that hardcore disciplined communism means "you have to report up the chain of command just like in a monarchist/capitalist army" or "you shouldn't be able to converse with your fellow cadres from other divisions without approval or oversight of upper management".

    This isn't a mystery you have to guess at. Democratic Centralism is well defined by Lenin and others. Go read it here.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/may/20c.htm

    In fact, being adapted to the local conditions, and being able to organically build power starting from a household or neighborhood level is extremely important for being a disciplined communist.

    Name all of the household and neighborhood organizations that wield political power over the heights of industry in order to enforce industrial policy and regulations.

    If you don't believe in decentralization, why are you posting on an instance of Lemmy

    You criticize capitalism, yet you use an iphone. Curious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (5 children)

    DPRK- 1945-53.
    Cuba- 1956.
    China-1949.
    Vietnam- 1975.
    the USSR- 1917/1925.

    "Over 50 revolutions that took power throughout the world for at least a year."

    Burying the lede there. Where are those 50 revolutions now? If you answer that question honestly, you admit to p-hacking.

    Zero sustained victories in the past 50 years. That doesn't mean it can't happen, though. Which is kind of my point. When Lenin was writing those works, there was no Marxist party that had ever seized power, and even republicanism was looking like a special case. Human relations weren't a "solved" problem then, and they aren't now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    Reform or revolution is indeed a solved problem. You are hundreds of years behind the dialectic, stuck in 19th century idealism. History has moved on.

    The working people of the world made huge victories through class politics via democratic centralized party structure and revolution, and then the world workers movement faced utter defeat when the USSR collapsed from a thousand small cuts, cumulative failures and mistakes. It still made it the furthest anything ever had until then, and we learn from and build upon the most advanced projects ever using those same tools and structures but with small adaptations. The core structure remains though, as it’s still the best thing we’ve ever devised for enacting revolution, taking power for our class and the following human governance despite its flaws, which can be worked at.

    Two steps forward, one step back doesn’t mean you should give up or start spinning in circles or going backwards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    19th century idealism gave us the illusion of complete command and control rather than a dialectic between suppliers and users.

    An emancipatory political practice necessarily involves making technology equally accessible to everyone. There is a set of technologies that does not deplete the ability of the earth to support humanity, and there is a set of technologies that certainly does. The vast majority of human societies today are reliant on ecocidal practices and are therefore self-destructive.

    It's weird to deflect from criticism that says "your preferred ideology had some victories for 60 years but has had 0 victories in the past 50 years" by saying "you"re stuck in the past, history has moved on" while you cling to the ever-receding victories of 1917 and 1949. By the year 2033, the period of successful demcent Marxist revolutions will be surpassed in span by the period in which all subsequent demcent Marxist revolutions went belly-up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 20 hours ago* (2 children)

    That isn't what they are saying. Clearly, the dialectic has changed. However, that does not mean that the core organizational strategy and goals should be abandoned, as they are the only ones ever to produce any kind of tangible results, however fleeting. Not that I am arguing we must be in lockstep with Lenin or Mao or whomever on this. But we need to have a better understanding of how and why they were thinking what they were thinking, and when these things changed. Perhaps a more unorganized approach is required in the decaying ruins of modernity. After all, we are far more in a fight with international financial capital than the local industrial capitalists these days (though these people are becoming one in the same more and more as time goes on).

    The general issue imo is a complete lack of scientific practice and ability to learn from our mistakes. Due to our unfortunate propensity of ending up here is generally by being right and being outsiders, so the only thing we carry is our opinions and our pride. However it is these very things that must be set aside for the good of the social revolution.

    These things are never really recorded, and only become anecdotal word of mouth that are simply oral histories of liberalized personal failures rather than studied examinations of what the organization was offering, how that was communicated, what was wanting within the organization, and what the economic conditions actually were.

    The real issue though, with the pursuit of decentralization, is one that rests primarily within Marxist theory. All markets begin as decentralized networks but trend inevitably towards centralized systems. That is the nature of the market. In the same way, decentralized networks are inevitably dominated by those who have the time/money to put towards consolidating their area of the network, which then inevitably centralizes the network as competition is assimilated. Most people still post on Reddit, even though it sucks.

    Combatting this process appears to be extremely difficult. However, taking the reins of it appears to be possible, and perhaps through doing that, a better, more decentralized, way forward can be applied. Idk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    All markets begin as decentralized networks but trend inevitably towards centralized systems. That is the nature of the market. In the same way, decentralized networks are inevitably dominated by those who have the time/money to put towards consolidating their area of the network,

    This is true, and should be the number one reason for creating hierarchies so that they are transparent.

    It's worth noting that decentralization does not mean disorganization. It probably does mean that you can't predict the finer details, but that's not the goal. The primary goal is to tip the scales, and the secondary goal is to make people's lives better in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    Ah, I think, for me, this is abit of a misunderstanding between a decentralized or diffuse organization, but we are definitely talking about the same thing here.

    Agreed, hierarchies must be transparent. We can't have situations where we say 'There is no hierarchy' but there is one. That is where issues quickly accrue. The key is justified heirarchies.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 21 points 1 day ago (19 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (18 children)

    the world's oil systems going up in flames

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (15 children)

    The emissions caused by all those systems going up in flames, to say nothing of the munitions used to cause that, are pretty bad though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (14 children)

    One time versus ongoing. It’s a net reduction

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (13 children)

    uncontrolled burns aren't run through catalytic converters or whatever the powerplant-level remediation is called. this is worse than burning it properly unless the total amount is way less, enough to cover all the extra emissions from increased military activity. the upshot is if it causes a long-term change in energy generation and iran's reparations depend on the oil flowing again eventually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (12 children)

    Total amount is way less. This is how the oil world dies, in flames. It's the only way forward, we have to rip the band aid off. There is no peaceful transition away from the oil reich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    You have a lot of assumptions baked into this. Why are you certain that this disruption results in a permanent decrease in oil consumption?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    Upcoming oil shocks will destroy the world economy and total consumption will collapse. We might have another world war where even more energy infrastructure is wiped out. China (the winners of the world war) will help rebuild the world from the ashes with clean energy. The table is set.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    So it's apocalyptic wishful thinking as usual, got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago*

    Apocalyptic, eh sure I guess.

    Wishful? Not at all.

    • premise: China will rebuild the world with clean energy
    • premise: oil reduction will devastate the world economy
    • premise: oil consumption will reduce.

    Oil reduction has already been hit. Energy markets are in chaos. Demand reduction has already occurred. Many people, like myself, are buying solar panels, EVs, electric scooters, electric bikes, battery systems, etc. The source of this is China.

    The EU went from being over a decade behind their emissions targets to being over a decade ahead. A leap of 25 years in a short timespan.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Production increases in other parts of the world make up for a large part of the opec losses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • No they do not, world oil supply has plummeted. Reserves have been drained. Demand has been destroyed.

    US oil production is up 3% from this time last year, and they are the biggest petroleum producer on earth. Not even enough to make up a fifth of the loss of just the pipeline that Ansarallah/Iraqi militants just took offline for months - let alone the strait closures.

    Iran and Ansarallah are enacting an ecological miracle

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago

    They announced an end to their campaign mod 2024ish from memory but I think recently said they'd resume but I'm trying to remember where I saw that as searching is failing me.

  • source