Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

Practical historical development?

Definition: Practical historical development looks at how money, jobs, and resources shape how societies change over time. It shows that the ways people make things, the tools they use, and how resources are distributed build the base for how societies work. Instead of thinking that big ideas or beliefs drive history, this view shows that real-world conditions—like who has what resources and how work gets done—create the path for changes in society and politics.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The problem with many conservatives and regressives is that the only change to the status quo they seem content with are based on bigotry rather than economics.

Of course you can see the comment’s individual karma. But, if you got my profile or yours, there is not accumulated karma.

Horrible take. I absolutely do not give a fuck about arbitrary internet points and would like to see an open discussion without a majority bias downvoting someone into oblivion just because they disagree. For example, your comment will not be hidden just because your comment is being downvoted.

The only thing bringing profile karma to Lemmy will do is attract botters to inflate their credibility. Those could also be used to downvote others so the botter’s comments and posts are pushed to the top.

Again, horrible idea.

Why make this assumption? Is there a reason you believe we need that karma system? I genuinely can’t think of any reason, outside of corporate interest to push engagement.

Hello there. I do a lot of research into history. I wasn’t aware of any French Canadian genocide so I decided to google it, and all that came up was the indigenous genocide committed by the Canadian people.

Can you link to specifically what part of history you are referring to? All I can see about French Canadians (Quebecois) are that they were the colonizers.

Please stop grandstanding lol. There are grassroot leftist movements that have been organizing, setting up mutual aid networks, etc. for years. Guess who has been suppressing those movements? The State and Corporate media. And, man, they got you convinced that 340 million people in one of the most diverse countries in the world somehow all think the same. Obviously we don’t. If we did, it’d be a hell of a lot easier to organize the masses, wouldn’t it?

Launching an attack on the most powerful military in the world is going to require more than pea shooters, my guy. I know this is the first time Canadians have felt a legitimate threat on their democracy in like 200 years, unless your First Nations. Let’s be real— I’m in Texas and you’re in Canada. Odds are you are much closer to D.C. than majority of Americans actually are. You severely underestimate how large and spread out this empire actually is— hence why it is crumbling.

Yea, there’s a Japanese film that came out around the same time with a similar premise that is also really good.

It’s a quote from The Departed and that’s exactly what the character is saying. The Church and State present the masses with binary choices that they ultimately control. They don’t want us to know about a third choice because then we start wondering about an infinite amount of possible choices which makes the masses harder to control.

In this case, we are taught that you are either a good guy who follows the law or you are a bad guy who breaks the law; abolitionists and runaway slaves were considered criminals but slave catchers were considered “Good Guys”. Today, the lobbyists and lawmakers are trying to make it illegal to criticize the government, protest, etc. to the point where the binary view of justice starts to cave in on itself.

Hey, you’re not entirely wrong. But, you’re also conflating protests with riots. I never said people do not protest for things that do not affect them— just that they don’t intend to riot unless something directly affects them.

And, in pretty much all of the examples you’ve given for riots, those were sparked by acts of violence perpetrated by white supremacists, union busters, police, etc. which forces the people to obviously defend themselves in a reactionary state. But, this is not the same as the masses mobilizing with the intent to root out and destroy these institutions that are designed to hurt and control us.

Holding signs and singing chants in the streets doesn’t change anything but it can easily be framed as a justification for more police and military spending to “maintain order and peace”. If you consider the elites who actually control the flow of commerce, it’s a net loss for the protestors who only have their jobs to risk and possibly jail time and a fine. In fact, the State applies Deterrence Theory in this way to keep the public from rioting and it has, so far, been extremely affective in the modern era.

Oh, and those hippies who protested the Vietnam War were a small percentage of white middle class youth that went on to be corporate leaders in America, many of whom are the primary antagonists we deal with today.

There is a threshold many people aren’t willing to cross that, in my opinion, is necessary for us to move toward dismantling classism. They have us so firmly put in place that they’re now comfortably passing laws that are erasing constitutional rights, and majority of the elderly in this country voted for him, keep that in mind.

I’ll end my rebuttal simply stating that the examples you’ve mentioned involved people who consciously viewed themselves as interconnected with those they were protesting alongside of. This is something we severely lack in today’s social-political climate; a shared consciousness, which is what a grassroots movement requires.

Oh, we are definitely getting protests. But, will we see riots? Will we see people taking control of their workplaces? Will people start growing their own food and shopping at farmer’s markets instead of grocery chains? The only people who have the ability to dismantle the vestiges of power that control them are the people themselves.

Historically, there have been riots during the Great Depression where people raided grocery stores. But, hey, homeless people and poor single parents have been doing this for years and are called criminals for doing so.

These people will need to be okay with being considered criminals if they truly wish to riot and change things, but they’ve spent decades voting to put people who do those things in jail.

Sorry, but you should. Historically, the only people who have ever rioted were people who were directly affected by said issues. If they can successfully be convinced that Daddy Government is going to fix everything while demonizing the actual protestors on the streets, you get decades of stagnation.

I’d love for you show me any counter examples in history.

No, it’s not impossible, unfortunately. Just look at Ukraine.

Why would retired old people suddenly riot? They will call their social security rep and wait for hours on hold while they watch Jeopardy and cable news that tells them rioting is bad and only criminals do that.