mathemachristian [he/him]

  • 5 Posts
  • 63 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 15th, 2023

help-circle


  • me trying to explain how capitalism cannot succeed to my wife in bed at 10:30pm because she finally asked about something related

    pepe-silvia speech-side-l-1 so like if the workers dont get enough wages they cant buy the stuff they make and then who are the capitalists gonna sell it to right

    catgirl-huh speech-side-l-1 why they gotta sell it to their own workers why cant they sell it to someone else

    pepe-silvia speech-side-l-1 Because its like a whole class thing my love so there is the class that owns the means of productions (bad, boo) and the workers (good, yay) and the capitalists gotta pay the wages of everyone right but profits mean the wealth gets distributed up always so they cant keep raising wages indefinitely and then if there isnt enough money at the bottom then no one can buy the stuff and the whole system crashes and everyone dies or revolts.

    catgirl-flop speech-side-l-1 We still gotta clean the kitchen

    So now I’m doing dishes and hoping I made progress with the deprogramming alphys-anxious














  • Out of the debris of this chaotic dispute we can pick out the central facts. First, that there was no democratic political program or movement whatsoever. Bacon’s Rebellion was a popular movement, representing a clear majority of the settlers, to resolve serious economic and social problems by stepping up the exploitaton of oppressed peoples. Far from being “democratic”, it was more nearly fascistic. Bacon was the diseased mind of the most reactionary faction of the planters, and in his ambitious schemes the fact that a few more freemen or ex-slaves had paper voting rights meant little. Far from fighting to abolish slavery, the Rebellion actually hoped to add to the number of slaves by Indian conquest.

    And, finally, there was no “Black and White unity” at all. Needing fighting bodies, Bacon at the very end offered a deal to his opponents’ slaves. He paid in the only coin that was meaningful — a promise of freedom for them if he won. Those Afrikans who signed up in his army didn’t love him, trust him, view him as their leader, or anything of the kind. They were tactically exploiting a contradiction in the oppressor ranks, maneuvering for their freedom. It is interesting to note that those Indians who did give themselves up to unity with the oppressors, becoming the settlers’ lackeys and allies, were not protected by it, but were destroyed.

    Thats from Chapter 2 of Settlers.

    It’s been a while since properly reading it but I think I remember it was fascist vs liberal infighting and at no point about proletarian solidarity.