>>12547755Because it isn't good. I know it's a really simplistic point, but the fact that things can be better, pretty much just means that they should be better. Like
>Oh, things aren't that good>Maybe we could make things betterDoesn't seem like that crazy of an argument to make..
And yeah, what you mentioned about immediate community is one of the core tenets of my belief; mutual aid and solidarity is extremely important to build dual power structures and imrpove life for workers. It's how the vast majority of labour movements have functioned.
And no, it isn't a contradiction
I believe that things can be better. Utopian, even. But I don't think it'll happen. First part is utopian, second is kind of just depressing. It doesn't mean I think it isn't worth working towards, even if I think the odds of it happening are slim
Obviously conceptually they're quite different but they don't cancel eachother out. Also I kind of chose that wording because it's contradictory. I'm not a happy socialist, most socialists aren't. Most of us understand that shit's extremely fucked
You can be a pessimist or depressed or a nihilist while seeking enjoyment in life
For a really specific example, I think that nuclear power is one of our only viable options left for electricity, since the deaths per kilowatt hour are so much lower, along with the lack of
Well
A nearly guaranteed 3 degrees C temperature increase that will come in the next 30 or so years from burning fossil fuels.
But I don't think we'll start building them in time since there's such a vested interest in coal and oil, along with widespread fear of nuclear from soviet fuckups and that one time there was both a tsunami and an earthquake at the same time in fukashima
