• The Future of Work
Roma Apples: Trump claims to be about bringing back factories and jobs. But Trump isn't about those things. Trump is about him, the person, what he stands for, what he's said, things he's done. Like racism.
Roma Apples: Is it possible to make those unhappy people happier without resorting to someone like Trump?
Agreed, the current mess is about Trump. But the people who voted for him have been here the whole time.
People who are happy are far less likely to fall for "racism" or other demagoguery. The question is, why aren't people happy?
Hello Roma! Thanks so much for such an intelligent response. This is my take on it, and I hope you will do me the honor of disagreeing with every point, so we can shake out the flaws and find the truth.
The solution is, of course, reason. First, because the reality is better than the fiction we are living, and second, because reasoned economics would benefit everyone so much that deprivation would stop fueling dischord.
Of course! Most people would be happier with better means. If you are not in deprivation, and busy doing what you love, there is no reason to fear that others are doing okay. Their doing okay seems a lot less like an affront to you.
Roma Apples: Can you make evangelical Christians who are affronted at the idea of gay marriage and abortion and transgendered bathrooms and multicultural holidays "happy" without stepping on the rights of others?
Right now almost everyone feels stretched to the limit. There is no reason for our society to be doing this to people. We are not really living in scarcity. If we could free up the resources of society which are being hoarded and wasted, everyone would be swimming in enough. That alone would ease tensions tremendously.
Bathroom rights are not contributing to unhappiness. What makes people unhappy about Christianity is that it isn't true.
Roma Apples: Can you make people who's livelihoods are disappearing happy without asking them to make changes to how they earn a living, when they like what they've been doing?
Of course. Everyone hates working for a living. There is no reason to do it anymore. Who wouldn't be happier spending their lives in pursuit of something worthwhile, work that they are doing because they choose to and no other reason?
Roma Apples: Can you make people who are afraid of terrorism and the increasing diversity of America be less afraid without stooping to draconian methods?
Of course. Terrorism is a response to deprivation and lack of enfranchisement too. The answer to it all is reason. People who use reason as a system are not in thrall of the supernatural claims of ancient religions. They don't see violence as the answer to their wrongs. And, people who are not missing out on the grand adventure that is life are not in back rooms hatching plots.
And those who reject change and see it as bad are always going to be unhappy, because see the beginning of this....all life is change.
Life will never be free of crazies but we don't have to deliberately manufacture them in such droves.
Roma Apples: Let me just say, we are not yet to the point where people are willing to give up their beliefs in order to use reality and reason to create better for everyone.
Almost everyone loves change for the better. If people have reason they can see what is really better.
Hello again Roma! We are forging the future by trying to glimpse its contours from here. Thanks so much for taking up the discussion, I am in your debt.
Well why not? Largely because Reason-as-a-system is not even being discussed. People are used to saying, "I'm perfectly reasonable!" without understanding that they are not utilizing reason as a a system.
Roma Apples: When you say "free up the resources of society which are being hoarded and wasted" to what are you referring? How do you suggest that be accomplished?
We are not teaching reason-as-a-system at school. We are not showing everyone how reason-as-a-system is responsible for every ounce of progress we have made since the Dark Ages, both technological AND moral. The minute people understand that reason is a system, like math, and it can be taught and learned, we can start teaching it. Then, people will be ready to use it.
I didn't say we were already ready. I'm saying, we need to start getting ready, and this is how.
Excellent question! I think you know the answer. Where are the resources? At the moment they are being hoarded by the very wealthy. How do we free them up? Progressive taxation. Bust up monopolies. Campaign finance reform. Public education, healthcare, retirement. The funnels which have been positioned to concentrate money and power narrowly at the top need to be reshaped into hoppers which distribute them widely.
Roma Apples: Christians who believe that it is true would heartily disagree with you on this.
This is how human progress in enfranchisement is always made - unconcentrating power from the top and distributing it downward and outward. Our time is no different.
They can try. It won't help. People have been heartily insisting that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are true for thousands of years and it hasn't made them one ounce truer. It really doesn't matter what people say. They can't make it true, no matter how hard they try.
I know that this is going to be a hard fight if you start from the position that the thing many people think makes them happy and is right and true, isn't.
What else can you do? You don't shy away from an important fight just 'cause it's hard, do you?
When you say people hate working for a living, I don't think that's correct. I think there are lots of people who like working for a living.
But, it may not be as hard as you think. The revolution has already happened. The 'nones' are growing at an amazing rate. When I started arguing religion on the internet sixteen years ago, there were still plenty of religious people who would argue back. Today there are none. Every religious argument has already been lost.
They are, as you point out, in decline. The holdouts can think what they want until they die. Younger people will not follow in their footsteps.
This is an important distinction. I wrote "working for a living," emphasis deliberate. Everyone I know loves working at something. Only a few lucky ones I know get to do that for their living. The things that most people have to do for money are not things they would do if they did not need the money. At least, they would not be doing it like they are now - at someone else's behest, on their terms, on their hours, mostly to their benefit.
And there are lots of people who find connection to their values and sense of community and sense of self through their work.
That's what I'm talking about! Imagine a world where all work was of this kind, instead of to pay bills!
He didn't promise them job retraining and education, which is what they should be getting, he promised them he would reopen mines and factories and let them have the way of life and earning a living that they have been accustomed to.
I am envisioning a future where work and "a living" are not connected. Where people do the work they want for the amount of time they want. Or, conversely, not work, when there is no work, instead of being forced to do busywork for money. Busywork for money is destroying the bios.
I would have told them the truth - that our entire relationship with "work" is about to change, and for the better. We no longer live in the jungle, where we have to force every person to work as hard as they can or put the whole tribe at risk. We are minutes from producing enough material sustenance for everyone with a handful of workers and an army of tireless robots.
I live with a man who says all the time "change is baaaaaddddd!". He says this if the supermarket decides to move the bread aisle from 2 to 8, he says this if Comcast moves the local channel from 3 to 26, he says this if a movie is remade...
No one has to muck coal anymore. And if they and their kids had full public education and public services and public healthcare and public retirement, and the opportunity to study what interested them and do something they loved, would they really want to go back into the mines?
Yet, for some reason he is buying bread in a supermarket. He is watching movies, on cable. He may be whining about change, but he has thoroughly embraced modernity nonetheless.
Change for the better takes time to adjust to, even if it's fabulous.
The overwhelming benefit sells it, eventually.
I certainly am not against the teaching of reason; it was my understanding that teaching critical thought was one of the main goals of a good education.
It does take time, but we can do it. We already did, a million times. We can do it more.
It was supposed to be. But how's that working out for this country?
But people who are attached to non-reason belief systems "think" that they have reasoned them through.
We can do better.
They would just be wrong.
Roma Apples: Go to Ken Hamm's website...
Ken Ham is just wrong.
Roma Apples: It matters what people think because, they are who we have to work with. :-)
True, it does matter, and that's why I never stop making the case for reason. I agree it may not be possible to change some minds, and we will all suffer from the bad decisions people make based on information that is not true.
Roma Apples: Uh, didn't you see the election? Are you sure we're heading towards this way of redistribution?
But, ultimately, there is no power in being wrong. It accomplishes nothing. It adds no capabilities.
In a world where being right and understanding things add tremendous capability, failing to try to be right will leave them behind. Being wrong is a non-starter. The future belongs to the kind of accuracy you can demonstrate.
The moral arc of the universe bends toward justice. Of course we are headed to some kind of just system. If nobody knows what that looks like yet, well, that's why we are having this conversation.
Roma Apples: You are envisioning a utopia that for many would sound like a nightmare.
Perhaps not, I'll elaborate.
I'm gonna talk about my husband again. He's the type of guy who is lost if he doesn't have a place of work to go to every day.
What have I said that could possibly preclude this?
He doesn't have to love the job, or the work, but he does love the comfort of sameness, of knowing what to expect and what's expected.
So he couldn't do this by choice, only by force?
Roma Apples: Those people want to go back to the mines.
Well, if some people really can't think of anything better to do with their lives than toil, they could do that too. Nothing I have said precludes this.
Roma Apples: You are talking utopia, and utopias always fail. Always.
The point is that they would not HAVE to. Those who want to toil, or follow comforting routines, could do so. Why not? Those who want to work longer hours for others than they do for themselves would be free to. Those who love working seventy-hour weeks would be able to. Those who want to forget their families and give the best part of every day to their careers could do so. Lots of people love doing this.
But, people who don't love doing this would not have to do it anyway. That's the difference.
If you really think that sounds like a nightmare, imagine how the future of work is depicted on the Starship Enterprise. People work their asses off, in real competition for rank and prestige, and for the satisfaction of deploying expertise in the pursuit of craft. People study, sometimes for years, just to become qualified enough to work with other experts on complex projects.
They aren't doing it for money. They aren't even getting paid. They don't need money. They are working to accomplish things, not to "make a living."
If that sounds like nothing more than science fiction, note that this is how people always worked together before the very modern notions of "jobs" and "money." People did work to get the result of the work. It's a very natural system.
Utopia, shmootopia. You and I today are living in freedom and luxury that would sound like a utopia to most people who have ever lived before. Whatever the next great advancement in human civilization is, it would sound like a utopia to us, despite its inevitable flaws and non-permanence.
The question is not, what would be utopic? The question is, what would be better? Specifially how? In what system would people be happier than now, and why?
My answer is, I think (most) people would be a lot happier, sharing in the bounty of human progress and making their own choices of how to spend their days, instead of slaving just to survive the artificial limits foisted on them by the unjust and contrived economic circumstances we have inherited.
• Baptizing the Dead Again
hopey: I don't understand, how can Mormons baptize the dead? What if the dead don't want to be Mormon?
In baptism for the dead,the deceased person for whom the baptism is made has a choice to accept or reject the ordinance. Church doctrine states this outright.
Like they know.
LDS_Chick: Why not? If there is an afterlife, why not let them choose?
If there is an afterlife, and if your religion is the one religion out of thousands which is correct about the nature of the afterlife, and if your magic rituals work exactly like you say they do.
LDS_Chick: We believe it does give them a chance for a better afterlife. Isn't that worthwhile?
The offensive part of all of this is supposedly rational adults pretending that performing magic rituals for the dead actually does anything.
Hmm, interesting thought. I wanted to take a proactive approach to this dilemma.
LDS_Chick: I know you don't believe. But I think there ARE desirable results to temple worship.
So, yesterday I personally baptized every single human who has ever lived and will ever live. The instant I did this, Hell disappeared. All humans now end up together in the afterlife, hallelujah! Problem solved, forever. You are welcome.
Maybe I should alert the press.
Sure. But there is no reason to think that giving the dead a choice is one of them.
LDS_Chick: You are welcome to believe what you want about me for my faith.
This is not about you. It is about a society dominated by unreason.
Resident: "Make America Great Again"? WTF? Was America ever great?
Now I don't think America is awful, but I do think as a country we have an attitude problem and tend to dwell on material things.
After WWII there was an article in Popular Mechanics detailing a new concept in manufacture. People realized that very well-made products sold fewer units. Manufacturers began to calculate how cheaply they could make products, how often consumers would accept failure and go back for another of the same.
Resident: I know it's hard to stomach but listen to what the Trump supporters are saying. There is fear here. Fear of everything being taken away from him. So how do we understand that and help to bridge that gap?
It's called "planned obsolescence." It was just one of many strategies employed after WWII to get Rosie the Riveter back in the home and spending money on consumer goods. This lifted the economy, made capitalists wealthy, and exported a rich vision of opulence to the world, to contrast the stark images of deprivation coming from our more collectivist rivals.
Our vision of endless consumption won that battle for ideas. But, only temporarily. There isn't really any reason to keep living like this. It's not making people happy. It's lonely being in competition with our brothers and sisters. It's creating terrible inequity. It's changing the air.
There is plenty of everything for everyone. We just have to let go of the Cold War and we can begin to share in it.
By directly addressing their concerns. People are afraid because of economics. We need to change the economics so they are not in deprivation and then there will be nothing to fear.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!! It's all about economics and scapegoating.
Some people are ok with fascism. Just like some are ok with socialism. It's all on he eye of the beholder on what is and isn't good.
Oh, I don't know. Suffering is pretty easy to identify, as is well-being. It's just that everyone is okay with ignoring suffering for their outgroup.
The only way that the economy is going to change for the group that voted in Trump is with massive retraining and re-education.
Fascism represents a very select ingroup. Socialism is no outgroup.
That would only change their relationship to the economy. The entire economy needs to change. For everyone.
It sucks to be 59 and in need of retraining or re-education. What is the solution?
Work needs to be optional.
I just listened to a report on my local public radio station about the timber industry here in Oregon. You know, the industry Trump promised to bring back... the hard cold fact is, it is now an automated industry. No matter how many trees we cut down, fewer and fewer people will be employed.
Time to forget "jobs."
Resident: We need to stop voting for lies!
Not one politician can tell the truth and still get elected because no one likes the truth right now. But, it's actually better.
Resident: Someone who voted for Trump is either a racist, misogynistic bigot, or they are someone who is okay with racism, misogyny and bigotry.
No one agrees that they are okay with racism, misogyny and bigotry. (Well, very few.) Rather, they insist that Trump does not represent racism, etc. Those statements were outliers, and were misinterpreted and blown out of proportion by the press, etc.
Resident: Make America Great Again!
If you don't see Trump or his movement as fundamentally racist, a few racist interpretations of his words just seem like smears.
The point is, I can't label every person who ignores or rationalizes racism as "okay" with it. They might, in fact, be disturbed. But for many that disturbedness isn't nearly as disturbing as the future which has no place for them in it. People who can't see themselves in the future can throw secondary values, like valuing outgroup, to the wind.
All it would take to make humanity great is richly funded, reasoned education for every person. We could do it for table scraps. It is a crime against humanity that we are not.
Resident: Make America Great Again!
It's not enough for "America" to be great. If we want to survive the trials of the future we will have to extend greatness to every human being. We stand or fall together.
• Gay Mosque
Muslimah: They have opened a "gay mosque" in Paris! I know alot of non-Muslims won't understand how wrong this is and how it goes against everything Islam stands for, but I had to speak out.
They don't need a mosque for the Gay to promote something that is a grave sin in Islam. Gays are already (as everyone else) welcome at the mosque.
But gay marriage is especially prohibited in Islam. Islam makes it very clear that a marriage is for a man and a woman.
They claim they are going to perform gay Islamic marriages! How could they?
Muslimah: I told you that you would not understand. It is either black or white in Islam. There is no gray area in this matter.
What do you think gay people should do? Pretend they are not gay?
Muslimah: What "do I think they should do"? It's not up to me and it's none of my business what they do. What is my business as a Muslim is to call out anything wrong in the ummah that I may see or hear.
Well, what would you like it if they did, to prevent the corruption of Islam by their gayness? Would you prefer it if they left Islam, or pretended they were not gay, or what? What would work out best for you?
Just because one calls them self a Muslim does not make it so, A Muslims adheres to the tenants of Islam and you can't do that and be gay at the same time.
So it sounds like what you want is for gay people to stop pretending to be Muslim.
The point is homosexuality is one of the worse sins in Islam and just because some guy comes and opens up what he calls a "gay" mosque doesn't change it.
Actually, that's not a bad suggestion, in fact I think straight people should do it too.
It does change it, slowly and surely, the same way it changed in the U.S. and in Europe. Evenutally human progress occurs. You guys are just slower, but it will change.
Muslimah: Those are Gods rules.
Yeah, sure they are. What a wonderful excuse to hurt gay people.
Muslimah: I think you should quit pretending to be human.
Why, what am I actually?
You're the only one here talking about hurting gay people.
What did I suggest that hurts gay people?
Muslimah: You brought it up.
Well, why don't you ask some gay people if my suggestion that gays be included and treated like equals is more hurtful to them than your suggestion that they are abomination before God, and see what they say.
Muslimah: I'll take Gods word for it thank you.
Of course you will. Like I said, it's a great excuse for hurting gay people.
Muslimah: You are the only one here mentioning hurting gay people.
I "mentioned" it, you are actually doing it.
Muslimah: I never hurt anyone in my life.
Sheila: What the gays need is to seek out therapy and healing! It works, according to this story: "My Two Years in Reparative Therapy."
1) You tried to hurt me with a gratuitous insult. ("I think you should quit pretending to be human.") It was just three posts ago, I'm really surprised you forgot it already.
2) It is hurtful to gay people to exclude them from normal society, to claim that being or acting gay is wrong, to claim that God dislikes homosexuality and doesn't want gay people to be how they are. That is why they feel they need their own mosque, because they are tired of being hurt by people like you.
If you don't believe me, seriously, ask a gay person what they think of what you have said in this thread. If you found that it was hurting them, would you stop?
This is the gayest story I have ever read.
• Citizens United
Diane: Media corporations have always been able to voice their opinions about candidates using corporate treasury funds. Why do you have such a big problem with other companies having the option to voice their opinions?
Media corporations are supposed to be performing a public service for democracy, by maintaining an informed electorate. Political analysis is part of that mandate.
Casinos, etc. are not performing a public service or in the business of disseminating political information. They are using their vast resources only to write legislation favorable to their profits, at the expense of the public.
Realistically, what we are talking about here are non-profits that have been unable to have a voice.
Realistically, what we are talking about here are those without money being unable to have a voice while those with lots of money have a massively amplified voice.
Also, "non-profit" is a bit of a misnomer here. These aren't charities or service organizations just because they are not designed for "profit." They are political agencies investing in servant legislators. The profit doesn't go to them, but there is still a profit. It goes to the corporations that funded the non-profits when legislation is crafted to enhance their bottom line.
Diane: As far as the big corporations, so what?
The big corporations have enough money to determine the outcome of elections through sheer spending power. Should elections be determined by which candidate has more money spent on them?
• Terrorist Threat
Supporter: Trump is going to bring back enhanced interrogation techniques. He's going to get tough on terrorists.
That is against international law.
Supporter: I would really like to see your valid source suggesting there is no terrorist threat.
They have already won against you.
• Post-Election Reflection
DareToBe: I think we can all agree America is pissed.
Americans would not be pissed if America was fair.
Singleton: They simply went to the polls and voted for what was best for their family. Just as we all do. And they won. Fairly.
I agree that they won fairly and I agree that people were doing what they thought was best for their families. I don't agree that this IS what is best for American families.
Ostrich: Trump won because he tapped into anger. Some racist, yes, but a lot just economic. There is a lot of anger out there.
Our system is not fair. All we have to do to get people to stop being so angry is to be more fair.
Palzs: David Brooks says Trump will be short-lived, and we need to make a movement for what comes after. The new movements will be for "open," as in borders and trade, or "closed."
Our economic system is unfair and exploitive. This is what needs to change. However, no one wants to change it. They just want to make it unfair in their favor.
Wondra: But what is there? What can people, who are so divided, come together around?
Some day we will get beyond this childish concern with hoarding. Think of all the resources and human time that are not going to happiness and well-being. We could free that up and everyone would be replete.
Palzs: Fairness. That is the issue. Not that life should be fair...I mean, it's the classic parental retort.
There are some things in life which cannot be controlled. That's when you say, "Life isn't fair." Then, there are things in life that CAN be controlled, and if they still aren't fair, it's because we are not controlling them to be fair.
But thinking a silver spoon daddy's boy who has never served the common good will change that is mind boggling.
That is not the occasion to shrug and say, well, life's not fair. You don't accept unfairness unless you HAVE to. If you can do anything about unfairness to make it more fair, that is far better than accepting the unfairness. When human systems are unfair we need to change them.
No one else was talking in language they could hear. It must have felt like the only choice for their suffering.
However you are correct in thinking that it will probably not work. As I have mentioned, Republican policies are like throwing gasoline on the fire. More of the same at best.
• In His Steps
Dude: Do you and your spouse have the same religion? Did one of you convert?
When I met my husband, I was not involved in any religious practice. But, my husband seemed like the most together person I had ever met. He really walked the talk when it came to compassion and inner peace. I saw that he had a loose meditative and moral practice that was informed by Buddhism.
That's a really endearing testimony about you and your man. He sounds like a great guy. I am sure he feels just as blessed to have you by his side. :)
I started doing some of the same things he was doing, and what do you know, it worked. I was able to begin a deliberate practice of clear thinking and compassion, and I learned the skills of overcoming suffering. It has brought me incredible happiness ever since, and an even greater passion and respect for my husband.
I'm so lucky to have him. I would have followed him anywhere, but I'm glad I followed him somewhere that works.
I hope so, thank you. Here is a picture from our recent vacation that just says it all. I call it In His Steps.
• Can You See Hell from Heaven?
I was wondering if people were really going to be happy in Christian Heaven, knowing that all the while, good people of other religions, who loved God, and tried to do His will, are frying.
Bandicoot: Hey! Not all Christians believe in hell, and I'm not even just talking about myself here.
Can you really be happy looking down on all the souls of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. - some of them people you knew - in torment, forever?
So I thought, perhaps you cannot see Hell from Heaven. Then you wouldn't have to worry about it. Out of sight, out of mind...right?
But...would you just forget that good people are frying far below? You would have to. Who could be happy knowing this?
A very great many do.
If one is to believe the story of Lazarus and the rich man, then yes, you can see from one side to the other and talk back and forth - but no crossing.
If I end up there I will build a bridge. From either side. :-)
• Dalai Lama & Compassion
PixieChick: Did you read this wonderful essay by the Dalai Lama? He says humans just want to be needed. We just need to help each other. We are meant to be compassionate, not selfish.
We all have this compassion within us. We all have selfishness, too. Both are important survival traits in differing circumstances.
BillyFan: I just love the Dalai Lama! He is the most compassionate person alive!
We are trained by culture and even programmed by biology to activate our selfishness. It usually looks like choosing the best, most straightforward option.
When we lived in tiny tribal units, we could individually picture all the people who our decisions affected. We could picture their reactions. This often activated the group-response over the self-response. Now, we live in vast civilizations, and we never see most of the people our actions affect. We don't have any way to asses their reactions. They are invisible. So, why not make the obvious choice to suit ourselves, the only ones here?
We are not monsters. The ability to take care of self is important, a primary function. Our culture in particular upleveled self-response to a fine art, in order to win the Cold War against our ideological enemies, the group-responders. It served us for a time.
However we are still a social species and always will be. Self-response has left us empty and alone and with a vast amount of material duplication which is changing the air.
People will always choose the option that works best for them. The trick is to set up the incentives so that working for the group also obviously works out best for the individual, too. Then people will always choose that.
The Dalai Lama is perpetrating a pogrom against a sect of Buddhist monks called the Shugden. They are being socially and politically isolated, refused service in shops, assaulted, etc, because of his demands that they disband.
PixieChick: "Pogrom"? Like I give a shit.
He claims he is justified because Shugden is problematic. The persecuted sect says otherwise.
The DL is just another politico.
Well, people are suffering.
PixieChick: As soon as I hit send I sort of regretted. But there is so much bad shit in the world, sometimes I do have to say I don't care.
But since you hate the Dalai Lama already, I can see why you made your original response.
I did not know anything about the Dorje Shugden when I wrote the response. After I read your post I wanted to know a bit more about the DL and so I looked into him. That is how I found out about the controversy.
PixieChick: Your response still does not resonate with me.
So, my response had nothing to do with this.
BillyFan: Every word he wrote is absolutely true. Everyone needs to be needed and being useful to community builds up a sense of belonging, a connection and worth.
How about a parable:
Malaclypse complains to the Goddess about the evils of human society. “Everyone is hurting each other, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war.”
The Goddess answers: “What is the matter with that, if it’s what you want to do?”
Malaclypse: “But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!”
Goddess: “Oh. Well, then stop.”
Why do you think we are like this? What do you think is the solution?
Hey Pdx! I am bumping this because it is important. Thank you so much for posting.
The Dalai Lama wants to see a world where everyone feels needed. What does that look like? Good jobs? Nice families? Dependents? What, specifically, is he suggesting?
Lots of people think, and have said, that we need more compassion in the world, less selfishness. How do we get it? Most people would like to "serve society," but many are consumed with keeping the roof over their heads. Where does the time for service come from?
From the article by DL: "A compassionate society must provide children with education and training that enriches their lives, both with greater ethical understanding and with practical skills that can lead to economic security and inner peace."
Well, yeah. Who could even dare disagree?
But what does that look like? How is it different from the education and training we are giving them now?
This is what a better world takes - specifics on what would be better, exactly how. If no one else will figure it out, we have to. Thanks again Pdx!
What would this look like?
*crickets for six days*
Of course no one, not even the Dalai Lama, can imagine what our world would actually look like with more compassion.
It's because compassion is, eventually, incompatible with capitalism.
This election was a referendum on capitalism and the suffering it causes. Unfortunately, we are going to try to blow up the system with more capitalism, like throwing gasoline on a fire.
When we are ready to abandon capitalism, then we can have compassion. That is what we need to figure out how to do. What is human life without individually-hoarded surplus?
Read more in the Archives