you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 160 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (42 children)

Yeah I like the sentiment, but no Chernobyl absolutely did not have such a small effect. Minimizing these things, especially when so well known, just fucks up our position. Reality denial isn't an effective way to advocate or to make people aware of the horrors of capitalism. All it does is train the average person to assume left wing points are childishly exaggerated. This is, in part, why capitalist propaganda is so easy.

Here we just accept the official number and ignore all other effects. If we took the same path with the Bhopaal disaster, we'd have to ignore all the non-fatal poisonings and believe uncritically the official instant death count of just over 2,200 ignoring any deaths to come afterwards. That would be stupid

Chernobyl was a terrible disaster that harmed an absurd amount of people, de-homed thousands, and damaged the ecosystem of the wider area. Its effects and danger are still present to this day and could have been much, much worse if not for the work of those who fixed the massive fuck up.

Both the Bhopal disaster and the Chernobyl disaster were bred by incompetence, corruption, and a general failure to care for the worker and the general population.

Now, if we were to keep a leaderboard, capitalism wins by many miles in the awfulness department. That's the note we should take, that's the drum we should beat.

It wasn't socialism that caused Chernobyl. If the workers, those who built and conceived of the soviet nuclear reactors, were in charge they would have put in the safe guards they advocated for well before this disaster. They were not allowed to and the consequence was a meltdown. That's why we should give the power to the worker. The Bhopal disaster? Capital was the determiner for who had power, and those in power caused the disaster. It was the fault of capitalism as capitalism was allowed to build Union Carbide with little in its way.

Edit: Changed Russian to soviet, re-aranged paragraphs, added clarity

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Board representation for workers needs to be a universal rallying cry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    My dad had just gotten me a hamster and we fed it lettuce that was affected. Fuckers killed my hamster. I'm just glad I didn't eat it I guess. Poor little guy, I was heartbroken.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (29 children)

    If the workers, those who built and conceived of the soviet nuclear reactors, were in charge they would have put in the safe guards they advocated for well before this disaster. They were not allowed to and the consequence was a meltdown. That’s why we should give the power to the worker.

    if this can't happen in a communist nation, what hope is there for any other worker?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 3 months ago (28 children)

    Russia was never communist. They were a dictatorship dressed up in communist clothing. If the workers ever controlled the means of production in a nation, I'd love to hear about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (21 children)

    that's a fascinating take; what makes you believe this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    I don't want to be the guy arguing on the Internet, but just read the Wikipedia article on communism here. When the Russian people toppled their last monarch, they never actually went full communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    Wikipedia

    this explains a lot about why you believe this.

    would you still believe wikipedia if i shared freedom of information act releases that directly contradict wikipedia? (the releases also contradict npr, cnn, cbs, bbc, etc.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    If you think Wikipedia is biased, then I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy OAN, News Max, Fox News, and all that other right wing horse shit. Wikipedia is community consensus. It's the only place I get my "news" from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Wikipedia is biased by nature as a secondary source, just towards the political paradigm so you don't recognize it as easily. In fact, here's a Wikipedia page you might want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Hey does ProleWiki have a page talking about its own issues? Weird how "evil" and "biased" wikipedia will explictly tell you about possible issues and its own history without issue, but ProleWiki won't.

    But sure, wikipedia is the dishonest one. Lemme go see how objective ProleWiki is on topics it dislikes.

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

    I wouldn't know, I've barely used it.

    Just checked and it doesn't seem to, but considering it's a much smaller and newer project than Wikipedia that would make sense.

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

    Fair enough. Thank you for responding.

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

    Sure. Just took a look at your edit though, and I feel like holding ProleWiki and Wikipedia to the same standards is a bit absurd, especially cause there aren't people who go around using it as their main source of news like how boaratio is doing to wikipedia. Since ProleWiki is so much smaller, it would only make sense that the articles there are lower quality, there aren't as many of them, and they have been less reviewed, no?

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

    yes, wikipedia is community consensus and community consensus once was that iraq had wmd's -- the foia proved otherwise. consensus isn't truth; it's just the most popular opinion at the time.

    the foia gives you what the us government tries to hide. it is literally the us government itself being legally forced to share its secrets to the american public because of a law that was passed decades before the us gov't became fully captured by corporate interests and the epstein class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    community consensus once was that iraq had wmd’s

    It really wasn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    here's wikipedia's consensus still framing the government's wmd claims as 'assertions' while uncritically repeating them years after the iraqi invasion: https://wayback.qa-archive-it.org/all/20080911173302/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    The foia showed the government had doubts before the invasion -- wikipedia didn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Okay..?

    Just because wiki says that doesn't mean that was the community consensus, millions of people protested that war. In my country it is still the largest protest in history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    We're not discussing the general public's consensus.

    We're discussing Wikipedia's consensus driven decision process and why it makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.

    Wikipedia said that there was consensus and anyone w eyes and ears knew that was bullshit -- as you've pointed out -- but people still want to use Wikipedia as a source anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    You mean the workers that control the means of production in socialist China??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The billionaires are working class there too?

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

    The billionaires that don't control the means of production?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

    The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has become a haven for wildlife, with species such as lynx, bison, and deer thriving in the area due to the absence of human activity for over three decades. This has led to a richer forest ecosystem and increased biodiversity, making it one of the largest nature reserves in mainland Europe.

    Also even if you take the most exaggerated numbers about Chernobyl and Fukushima combined, it's still just something we should just ignore. It was a small blip. Per megawatthour produced, nuclear energy is still by far the safest energy, safer than solar (because people fall off of roofs).

    Instead you're not just resisting, you're actually angrily rebuking and scolding OP's attempt to put these two catastrophes into perspective. You apply a double standard to how factually accurate a shitpost has to be vs the global capitalist propaganda machine.

    Capitalist propaganda is effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -3 points 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)