if property is theft why would it be bad for anyone to want to see the natural wonders of the world, and why should anyone have any right to deny another’s right to experience them in person? all of it should be all our common heritage as human beings
This is a take that is maybe justifiable in a world in which International FALGSC has already been established; but I don't think it applies in the here & now. It's like saying that because hard national borders are a product of Liberal-Bourgeois Nationalistic ideology (they largely are), that this means that the DPRK should just submit to the South. It's a take that helps absolutely no-one for whom the discussion actually matters.
I suppose it depends on whether or not you're assuming that world in which Communism is politically dominant would also mean one in which a place like Hawai'i would be able to maintain it's own political & cultural autonomy. :shrug-outta-hecks:
i think it would but like, how would it "pay for" necessary infrastructure in the absence of its tourist economy? like China didn't just build its manufacturing base out of literally nothing, so, would Hawaii be better off without tourist income if that tourist income were explicitly under the operation of and to the benefit of the natives? The things in the image re: water resources are nice thoughts, but what if i.e. even in the absence of tourism driven changes in water allocation there is a need for an expensive desalination plant? infrastructure doesn't just come from the aether and just assuming Hawaii would otherwise Make It Happen is just... wishful thinking
I mean, my read on the original, original post; the one that's got the little palm tree on it. My read on the take that it's trying to give, is that it's bad to personally partake in tourism to Hawai'i, because it only really serves as a way to sell a kitsch, commodified version of Hawaiian culture to :thumb-cop:-shaped gringos, to absolutely no benefit to it's native people. Probably not unlike Cuba under Batista really.
Uhh, as to what Hawai'i should, or would do otherwise, especially under Communism? I have no idea, and don't pretend to. I'm from the rural midwest & I'm too broke to ever leave this hellish void. Cuba may be a good place to look for inspiration though, perhaps. 👀
if you negate a need for hawaii to “earn” money by being a tourist hotspot
So, how
What can the hawaiian islands provide that would build the necessary infrastructure for self sufficiency? Posing hypotheticals from post- global communism is still wishful thinking
Does global communism mean building everything everywhere without regard for anything? Without the need to support tourist infrastructure why build Whatever Project in Hawaii over whatever region more resilient to climate change issues? Infrastructure doesn't come from nothing and if there's no reason to consider the beauty of whatever region over something more survivable long term, again, you're operating on wishful thinking, but unfortunately humanity can't survive on vibes alone
that's just wishful thinking and vibes tho at least "spend tourist income on benefiting the locality" is based on real world necessity. Like what is this equal distribution of resources shit? Build air conditioners in death valley to uh keep up tourism??
One supposes that under FALGSC, Hawaii could have political and cultural autonomy without having to be either fully self-sufficent or have an exportable resource surplus.
This is a take that is maybe justifiable in a world in which International FALGSC has already been established; but I don't think it applies in the here & now. It's like saying that because hard national borders are a product of Liberal-Bourgeois Nationalistic ideology (they largely are), that this means that the DPRK should just submit to the South. It's a take that helps absolutely no-one for whom the discussion actually matters.
I mean is the image in the OP suggesting that things would be different with communist property relations? not really
I suppose it depends on whether or not you're assuming that world in which Communism is politically dominant would also mean one in which a place like Hawai'i would be able to maintain it's own political & cultural autonomy. :shrug-outta-hecks:
i think it would but like, how would it "pay for" necessary infrastructure in the absence of its tourist economy? like China didn't just build its manufacturing base out of literally nothing, so, would Hawaii be better off without tourist income if that tourist income were explicitly under the operation of and to the benefit of the natives? The things in the image re: water resources are nice thoughts, but what if i.e. even in the absence of tourism driven changes in water allocation there is a need for an expensive desalination plant? infrastructure doesn't just come from the aether and just assuming Hawaii would otherwise Make It Happen is just... wishful thinking
I mean, my read on the original, original post; the one that's got the little palm tree on it. My read on the take that it's trying to give, is that it's bad to personally partake in tourism to Hawai'i, because it only really serves as a way to sell a kitsch, commodified version of Hawaiian culture to :thumb-cop:-shaped gringos, to absolutely no benefit to it's native people. Probably not unlike Cuba under Batista really.
Uhh, as to what Hawai'i should, or would do otherwise, especially under Communism? I have no idea, and don't pretend to. I'm from the rural midwest & I'm too broke to ever leave this hellish void. Cuba may be a good place to look for inspiration though, perhaps. 👀
deleted by creator
So, how
What can the hawaiian islands provide that would build the necessary infrastructure for self sufficiency? Posing hypotheticals from post- global communism is still wishful thinking
deleted by creator
Does global communism mean building everything everywhere without regard for anything? Without the need to support tourist infrastructure why build Whatever Project in Hawaii over whatever region more resilient to climate change issues? Infrastructure doesn't come from nothing and if there's no reason to consider the beauty of whatever region over something more survivable long term, again, you're operating on wishful thinking, but unfortunately humanity can't survive on vibes alone
deleted by creator
that's just wishful thinking and vibes tho at least "spend tourist income on benefiting the locality" is based on real world necessity. Like what is this equal distribution of resources shit? Build air conditioners in death valley to uh keep up tourism??
I'm going to sleep good night
deleted by creator
One supposes that under FALGSC, Hawaii could have political and cultural autonomy without having to be either fully self-sufficent or have an exportable resource surplus.