lack of sanely sized options

I don’t get this, like they still make sedans. Go to a toyota or honda dealership and there are still plenty of small affordable efficient cars.

I agree we should definitely tax them but that’ll only go so far. Even if we tax them people have shown there willing to spend a lot more money for an suv . People view them as a status symbol and cultural signifier and will pay a lot since a part of there identity is based off it.

Strict regulation making it so a majority of people just can’t buy one would be the only way, but thats unpopular and fox News would have a field day about “the liberals are coming for your truck”

Still cheaper then the extra car payment for getting a car twice as big as you need for rare occasions.

I think the bottom right one is supposed to be sympathetic and more making fun of the catch 22 of the car arms race caused by all the other panels.

deleted by creator

while consumers constantly say “where’s my small car?”

On a Honda or Toyota lot, there are still plenty of small affordable, fuel efficient cars to be bought in the US, people just aren’t buying them and are choosing to pay twice as much for an SUV

meat so cheap it’s the best option for consumers vs plant protein

It’s not, the cheapest diet there is is rice and beans, and you can buy those at literally any store that sells food. Beans are half the price per grams of protein compared to chicken, way less compared to beef and pork. .

People aren’t driving big cars and eating meat because there are no other options or it’s too expensive. There are plenty of other options, and its more expensive to buy an SUV or eat meat, they choose to because they like it and don’t know or care about the climate costs.

Nah that’s New Orleans, and you would’ve known that if you studied your Lil Wayne.

So do you have to basically ai spam applications if you want a job now? Cause it seems like companies are using ai to filter out 99% of applications so there’s no use into putting manual effort to adjust resumes and write cover letters if a human isn’t going to read it.

corporations producing the vast vast majority

Care to give some citations? Cause a large chunk of greenhouse gas emissions can be chalked up to individual choices. Eating meat (14% of ghg ) and driving (16% of ghg in us) being the top two. I guess you could argue it’s the auto corporations fault for lobbying congress against investing in public transport, but no one is forcing you to eat meat.

I understand corporations are the biggest problem for the planet but you can’t just put it all on them and not look at the ways your lifestyle is also contributing to climate change. Even if we nationalized every major polluting company and somehow got them to net zero we’d still have a problem if everyone is driving a huge pickup truck everywhere and eating beef everyday.

Para baseballum

Yeah, I’m staunchly for legalization of all “vices” but I’m not going to pretend that they’re harmless and aren’t valid reasons to want to get rid of them besides being a kill joy.

Why are you so hostile? Every other “refutation” your giving is half name calling and half obscenities.

EDIT: looking at your post history it seems your this way to nearly everyone. Your a combative entrenched ideologue who is convinced they know everything and anyone who disagrees is an idiot. Usually see this in tankies but I guess anarchists can be convinced of the infallibility of there ideology as well. I’d recommend reading some zizek and examining your relationship to your ideology. Any way just going to block you now since you seem opposed to any constructive conversation.

It’s difficult for you to understand anyone risking their lives without a commissar standing behind them with a gun pointed at their head.

It’s not for me, I recognize that there are committed partisans who will risk there lives for the cause, you seem to be, or at least claim to be, one of them. If you are, I recommend volunteering to defend rojava, they look like the sdf could use you about now and they’re probably the closest thing we have to barcelona on this planet right now. I’m saying that’s not most people. There were tons of people volunteering to fight the fascists in WWII but they were not the majority of troops, a majority were drafted, because if the allies stuck to an only volunteer force they would’ve lost. Is it difficult for you to understand that most people, even if you explain it to them well, aren’t going to want to die for anarchism or any sort of ideology for that matter? If you don’t you really need to touch grass.

Oh, look… here comes the military expertise you gained by playing “Civilization” games again.

Idk where you are getting this from, seems sort of a projection since you keep bringing it up and are the one using video game terms like “spawn”.

What examples of “unsupported” movements do you have?

There’s one literally in the sentence you quoted, the October revolution. The allies flooded aid to anyone opposing the bolsheviks, the right, liberals and a lot of the Socialists opposed them, the best they got was a temporary de facto ceasefire from the central powers. Against all this they won the civil war, i wish they hadn’t, but they did.

Even the original modern revolution, the French revolution succeeded for a while despite every nation in Europe opposing them and was only taken down by napoleon’s ego. They didn’t do all this by relying on a democratic all volunteer force, they did it with the levee en mass and a top down military hierarchy.

the fundamental military issue of anarchism

Do tell… WHAT “fundamental military issue of anarchism” have you managed to “identify,” eh?

Did you read the next sentence? No one is going to vote to go on the offensive except zealots. Yeah you had durrutti leading an offensive at the beginning of the war but that was full of literal die hards committed to the cause. Once they are all dead you need to conscript, you need to give top down orders, you need to requisition supplies from civilians, which are all anathema to anarchist ideology. Everyone but hardcore partisans aren’t going to volunteer and even if they do they aren’t going to vote to risk there lives further by going on the offensive. You see this in every case of a democratic military, once the initial wave of zeal wears off they start to hunker down and go on defense. You see it in the Paris commune, black Ukraine and Barcelona.

What are these 2 constant factors if not for the inability to take initiative? And why are these factors not present in other revolutionary movements that were able to succeed like the bolsheviks in 1917? They too had no foreign aid, and the near entirety of the domestic political establishment against them.

Do you think any criticism of anarchism makes someone a tanky? That just seems like the same follow the party line logic that we criticize actual tankies for. I could go on and on extolling the virtues and beauty of the system in Barcelona and condemning the multiple atrocities and failures of the communists but as soon as I suggest democratic militaries don’t work I become a tankie?

How is 1 a half truth? It seems we agree, the western bourgeoisie democracies failed to provide aid to the Republicans while the fascists did. I guess I didn’t mention that the soviets gave aid, but not as much as the fascists so they had the advantage on that front.

Why would you say the civil war was lost then? I agree the fascist aid wasn’t decisive, and the Republicans could win in spite of it, but they didn’t. It wasn’t because the communist turned on the anarchists, the republicans were losing the war prior to that. The anarchists had ample time and supplies to martial an army and relieve Madrid but they never did, they were content to hold there lines in aragon and wait for Franco to mop up the basque country before turning on them because the fundamental military issue of anarchism, no one is going to vote to go on the offensive.

I’m not a tankie, I just recognize the military weakness of the anarchist cause, just as I recognize the communist weakness of devolving power. I recognize anarchists can’t win wars and communists can’t give up power once the war is won. History has shown both to be true in every scenario its come up. Understanding the weaknesses of both causes is necessary if we want to achieve liberation from oppression and exploitation.

Great argument, really debunked all my bullshit there

Perhaps you should get your military education from something other than video games?

?

Where’d that come from, i didnt cite any games, and as far as I know there aren’t even any games about the Spanish civil war .

If your such a military history expert could you point me to a civil war where an anarchist faction won and wasn’t eventually defeated by authoritarians?

I read appendix 6 and even gave some quotes from the source showing my point. I’m not gonna read the whole thing in a day to reply to a comment, most of it is his war memoir and has little to do with the discussion. Appendix 6 was the one talking about propaganda that op directed me to.

Yeah, the meme is accurate. After the right has been defeated the anarchists and authoritarians will turn on each other, both sides understand this. The blacks didn’t defeat the reds because of lack of will or a naive commitment to left unity, they lost because they lacked the discipline and organizational capacity to win a civil war.

Went through the Wikipedia for it and read appendix 6. I still stand by my opinion that the anarchists were doomed by either fascist or communist hands due to there lack of discipline. Yeah everyone was aligned against the anarchists, but everyone was aligned against the bolsheviks in 1917 and they were still able to win a civil war and establish a government.

Most of the appendix I read was litigating the conflicts in Barcelona in May and how the communist press distorted and lied about what happened. I’m willing to accept the communists did a coup and tried to cover it up and blame it on the POUM. The question is whether that was the right strategic move given the circumstances, and Orwell recognizes this:

Of course it is arguable that the C.N.T. workers ought to have handed over the Telephone Exchange without protest. One’s opinion here will be governed by one’s attitude on the question of centralized government and working-class control.

And elsewhere he emphasizes the difference between communists and anarchists:

So, roughly speaking, the alignment of forces was this. On the one side the C.N.T.-F.A.I., the P.O.U.M., and a section of the Socialists, standing for workers’ control: on the other side the Right-wing Socialists, Liberals, and Communists, standing for centralized government and a militarized army.

In a war you need centralized military control to win, and war has never been won without a commander and a hierarchy below them controlling the troops. Orwell seems to be of the mind that a revolutionary discipline can be achieved through a sincere belief for a cause. This makes sense for a foreign volunteer who signed up for there belief in socialism, but your average person isn’t motivated enough by ideology to voluntarily risk there life.

This is shown by the anarchists unwillingness to relieve Madrid. By the time of the POUM purge the Republicans were losing the war. What needed to be done was a mass conscription drive and then a push to relieve Madrid. The anarchists couldn’t do that because conscription was authoritarian and a democratic militia is never going to vote to leave there defensive lines and go on the offensive as that would mean more danger and casualties. So they were content to man the front in aragon and not much else. Orwells account shows this.

I share Orwells love for the worker control and true democracy of Barcelona during the civil war, but I don’t think that system can survive the realities of a civil war. I’d love to be proven wrong but I haven’t found any evidence to the contrary. If you have one please let me know, it’d restore my faith in the ability of man to overcome oppression.

There were some in the first gulf war. People forget but iraq had the sixth largest airforce at the time and were able to shoot down a couple American planes before being overwhelmed and fleeing to Iran.

The fascists won because

1. They had more foreign aid from nazi Germany and fascist Italy. The luftwaffa especially was a key advantage for the fascists as they had air superiority and were able to bomb republican positions with little cost. If France, the UK and the US had a backbone and sent aid the Republicans would have won.

2. They had more military expertise and discipline. Pluralism and anarchism are great in peace time but you can’t win a war with them. The anarchist system was a wonder to behold in Catalonia, but they were never going to be able to spread it to the rest of Spain because they were never able to win a battle after the opening skirmishes in aragon. Say what you will about the communists, they had discipline and had proven there system can win a civil war in russia. If only they had a trotsky and lenin to competently lead the fight against fascism.

Did the communists go too hard on repressing the anarchists? Yes

Did the communist have a valid reason to suppress a movement about not following orders and leadership during a war? Yes

Don’t they know, trump did CLEAN COAL , all the coal is clean because of CLEAN COAL and you can’t get black lung from CLEAN COAL