|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
Esports are the way of the future, and the truly egalitarian competition
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
It's a little crazy how differently this is playing out than the "we must protect our families and institutions!" anti-LGBT crusade of the Bush years. That sucker took years to stamp out and even then the death blow had to come from a conservative SCOTUS. I think Biden himself actually being apparently genuinely good on the issue and not willing to budge is the big thing. Back then you could be a Dem but take the chud stance on LGBT rights and not get any backlash from the party, which gave it a whole shitload more strength and legitimacy. Now I get the impression that anybody who wants to turn chud on the issue would get eaten alive. Crazy when just as recently as 2008 Biden saying he wouldn't support gay marriage, in favor of civil unions, put him basically smack in the middle of the party Well, different so far. I'm at least glad that the TERF/FART weirdos who tried to use Harris catching grief for her record to get a foot in the door seem to have failed Edgar Allen Ho posted:Esports are the way of the future, and the truly egalitarian competition Rocket League is the most perfectly designed for esports game on earth. It's also the only one lol
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:I was under the impression that Socialism and Communism are two different forms of government, how is Socialism meant to lead to Communism? In Marxist theory socialism is what you probably recognise as communism - everything is owned and operated by the state which ideally represents the people, etc. Communism is the utopian society that is supposed to form out of that, where there’s no money or anything and no (or very little) need for a state at all as everyone is now equal. The problem is that in common parlance “communism” has come to mean “the policies espoused by various Communist Parties”, and socialism has come to just mean less extreme versions of that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1388840774289149962 Weigel and Sykes both discussing the differences in grassroots and backbench GOP response from 2009-2010 to today. I'd (again) suggest that nobody overextend on conclusions-the lack of an astroturfed Tea Party successor so far doesn't mean that there isn't one coming or that the deficit hawks have lost the party and it's now Dem Neoliberalism vs GOP populism or whatever the gently caress. Just something to think about and consider if you're of the belief that 2022 will be guided by 2010, or that Dem success in 2018 spells doom for their majority next year. At this stage, I have to imagine the GOP would settle for recreating the energy and momentum of their pro-Covid movement. Instead they've got McCarthy responding to a Biden address with the burger ban and Ben Shapiro buying a wood. At this stage, Indivisible was already being blamed by congressional republicans for loving up the Obamacare repeal and we were nearly 3 months past Santelli's tea party stunt.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:In Marxist theory socialism is what you probably recognise as communism - everything is owned and operated by the state which ideally represents the people, etc. Communism is the utopian society that is supposed to form out of that, where there’s no money or anything and no (or very little) need for a state at all as everyone is now equal. It's also very important to note that despite what lots of people claim (including lots of communists), not all socialists are communists. Communism is a specific flavor of socialism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:I was under the impression that Socialism and Communism are two different forms of government, how is Socialism meant to lead to Communism? Socialism and Communism were originally synonymous. Communism was divided into two stages: the lower stage, and the higher stage. The lower stage is also known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the stage in which the state is seized for the workers and forms a sort of protective cocoon over the metamorphosing Communist society, defending it from internal and external threats while it slowly changes. The higher stage is where the state has been dismantled as ruling and working classes have been successfully abolished and everyone is a worker. While it may have begun earlier it was around the time of Lenin that it became popular for Socialism to refer to the lower stage of Communism while Communism would be the higher stage. While sometimes confusing Communism can and does also refer to people and societies in the lower stage who aspire to reach the higher stage even if they have not accomplished it yet. There are people who identify more as [democratic] socialists, but they're not really socialists in the Marxist way of understanding it, they typically take a reformist rather than revolutionary position. This is i.e. Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It's also very important to note that despite what lots of people claim (including lots of communists), not all socialists are communists. Communism is a specific flavor of socialism. this is not correct
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
from a few pages ago but it’s also fascinating to me how often a scene forms movie becomes well known and comes to represent rhe movie in the public a consciousness - and that representation is really wrong. the best example I can think of off the top of my head is risky business. the movie isn’t actually just a fun story about dancing in your house when your parents are gone.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:this is not correct Thank you for demonstrating my point. The word "socialism" used in the modern sense predates Marx by several decades (it was in usage during the early 1820s). Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 14:55 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:In Marxist theory socialism is what you probably recognise as communism - everything is owned and operated by the state which ideally represents the people, etc. Communism is the utopian society that is supposed to form out of that, where there’s no money or anything and no (or very little) need for a state at all as everyone is now equal. From the way you describe it communism doesn't actually exist, it's more of an ideal to strive for rather than a system of government.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Weigel and Sykes both discussing the differences in grassroots and backbench GOP response from 2009-2010 to today. I'd (again) suggest that nobody overextend on conclusions-the lack of an astroturfed Tea Party successor so far doesn't mean that there isn't one coming or that the deficit hawks have lost the party and it's now Dem Neoliberalism vs GOP populism or whatever the gently caress. Just something to think about and consider if you're of the belief that 2022 will be guided by 2010, or that Dem success in 2018 spells doom for their majority next year. Part of me is worrisome that there is something brewing. Tea Party poo poo happened very suddenly all at once with fox news support and massive online infrastructure. It was nowhere until it was everywhere. But the other part thinks it would have happened by now. Santelli did his rant on the floor of the chicago stock exchange feb 9th of 2009. Glenn Beck did his nonsensical "we surround them" speech sometime around then. The first big rallies were in April on tax day. The only (clearly) coordinated republican effort right now are voter suppression laws and anti trans bills. I don't know if it's just the Koch's having gotten what they want or the corporate powers that be realizing the GOP overreached. Frankly things are bad enough right now without an astroturfed tea party.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
Otteration posted:Yeah, IIRC, Shelly was hosed if he did, and hosed if he didn't. Not sure how greedy he is, as much as he was hungry at the time to survive. And maybe be "successful". Kinda speaks to the state of society in general, more than the individual characters, I guess. Open to interpretation though. I went to look it up and it turns out I've been getting the movie and the original Mamet play tangled up in my head. The movie definitely muddies the waters - Levene is much more sympathetic, and the movie invents Blake to give Levene external pressure. In the play, he's just generally an rear end in a top hat to Williamson, steals the Glengarry Glen Ross leads because he feels like he's entitled to them, and pulls the "my daughter's health" line out of his rear end as a last-ditch move to get Williamson to not turn him in. In conclusion, Glengarry Glen Ross is a land of contrasts! 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
I would like to see Biden succeed so much that it completely repudiates the Republican Party as it currently exist leaving no political room to the right of the democrats. Thus we get some modern great realignment where the GOP after abandoning fascism decides to become a socialist party and the Democrats are once more conservative with the topic of social issues firmly solved in between them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Part of me is worrisome that there is something brewing. Tea Party poo poo happened very suddenly all at once with fox news support and massive online infrastructure. It was nowhere until it was everywhere. I prefer the comedy answer. Republicans incompetence at managing covid, basic shite house staffing etc means that they are now simply incapable of organizing anything like that
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:From the way you describe it communism doesn't actually exist, it's more of an ideal to strive for rather than a system of government. The problem with striving towards the ideal of communism is that it depends on humans not being greedy fucks. All it would take is one self-interested person to throw a wrench in the whole utopian system. Any mechanism you could come up with to stop greedy people creates an inherent power imbalance, and then you no longer have an equal society. It's just not feasible in reality unless you somehow take greed out of our DNA. Capitalism on the other hand harnesses people's greed into an incentivizing force. Without strong regulation this leads to perverse incentives like destroying the environment for personal gain, but it's possible for capitalism and heavy regulation to coexist. This is why I ultimately think that heavily-regulated capitalism is the long term solution, because it works with human nature, not against it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Esports are the way of the future, and the truly egalitarian competition strangely there are very, very few women playing at the top level of esports, so something perhaps is keeping esports from anything remotely resembling egalitarian (it's the absolutely pervasive toxicity and harassment)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Seph posted:The problem with striving towards the ideal of communism is that it depends on humans not being greedy fucks. All it would take is one self-interested person to throw a wrench in the whole utopian system. Any mechanism you could come up with to stop greedy people creates an inherent power imbalance, and then you no longer have an equal society. It's just not feasible in reality unless you somehow take greed out of our DNA. This is my view. Capitalism does a good job of maintaining supply and demand mostly. The state’s job is to plug in the holes by providing essential human services like healthcare, education and welfare to catch anyone who couldn’t cut it in a rigidly capitalist system. At the top there should be ways to keep wealth from spiraling so far out of control that it puts you in charge of government. If we correct those two things we’ll get maybe 50 years of prosperity before they find a way to start chopping again.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Seph posted:The problem with striving towards the ideal of communism is that it depends on humans not being greedy fucks. All it would take is one self-interested person to throw a wrench in the whole utopian system. Any mechanism you could come up with to stop greedy people creates an inherent power imbalance, and then you no longer have an equal society. It's just not feasible in reality unless you somehow take greed out of our DNA. Capitalism does no such thing, it is the accumulation of capital to the end of using it to grow into more capital by any means necessary with a rigidly self-enforcing mechanism that selects for shorter term gains. M -> C -> M' as Marx summarized it. You can use socialist principles strategically to slow it down, but at the end of the day it's a system that will never stop and demands an infinite supply of resources to work, which we obviously do not have, and will eventually overcome any restraints put on it because of the fundamental contradiction arising from the people being regulated having all the money, power, and agitprop channels. Any capitalist who does not seek to destroy anything constraining them will instead be destroyed by another who does, a selection process which has gotten us from Ricardo and Smith's views to Greenspan's and Rand's Commerce existed long before Capitalism did and is the force that mediates human greed into whatever force the state wants. In our case, infinite growth forever, but if greed can be harnessed by a state toward psychotic growth and profit above all else, it can also be harnessed toward directing people's self-interest toward more egalitarian ends, through both soft (carrot) and hard (stick) means Epic High Five fucked around with this message at 15:31 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
Biden's first 100 days and where he stands on key promises: https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Part of me is worrisome that there is something brewing. Tea Party poo poo happened very suddenly all at once with fox news support and massive online infrastructure. It was nowhere until it was everywhere. vyelkin posted:That poll includes these questions:  ing over Hillary, Dem leadership wasn't publicly spatting over whether she should be kingmaker, special election candidates weren't touting their pro-Clinton bonafides and not even the most distorted Greenwaldian caricature of the Russia investigation was "Phase 3: President Clinton".McCarthy is desperately trying to smooth over any differences or conflict between "Supporter of Donald Trump" and "Supporter of the Republican Party". We saw how well that's been working at the Utah convention yesterday. FizFashizzle posted:But the other part thinks it would have happened by now. For what it's worth, I have some of the similar "what's brewing?" concern, especially for whenever all but the no hopers stop relitigating 2020. Still, that it's this delayed and even official opposition is so scattered should give pause to anyone with an inevitable red wave narrative. Kraftwerk posted:I would like to see Biden succeed so much that it completely repudiates the Republican Party as it currently exist leaving no political room to the right of the democrats. BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:I prefer the comedy answer. Republicans incompetence at managing covid, basic shite house staffing etc means that they are now simply incapable of organizing anything like that You know, in whichever of those timelines where the result is legislative bungling, not fashy power grabs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Part of me is worrisome that there is something brewing. Tea Party poo poo happened very suddenly all at once with fox news support and massive online infrastructure. It was nowhere until it was everywhere. There's been a schism pretty much fully manifested for a couple months now. It's most visible in divisions among gop donors, and you basically have pro/counter insurrectionist factions (pro-insurrection ofc is nearly synonymous for trumpists and includes the q people). On the other end you have the fundamentally pro-corporate wing of the gop which is winning a battle for business interests and corporate donors. One of the really bizarre developments has been the pro-insurrection side just outright abandoning a lot of the business friendly language and instead yelling about how they want to punish businesses that don't go along with their culture war stuff. Anyways, I think you're correctly picking up on the likelihood that there will be some kind of realignment or something that will come out of this and/or just that there is enough instability and volatility here that some really out of left field poo poo could happen. Best case for the gop is probably something tea party like, where they get a more extreme faction that is still ostensibly willing to play ball. Anyways, I emphasize that's probably the best case for them because more tangibly, the gop has been losing centrists/independents/business-minded conservatives and that's actually a significant part of their entire party. None of that is to say the gop is dead and doomed or anything, just they're in a volatile spot and it's increasingly urgent that they figure out how they're going to go forward without continuing to bleed off support that they really can not afford to lose.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
Claims that capitalism is just human nature seem strange to me when capitalism wasn't invented until the 17th century or so. If anything is human nature it would be hunter gatherer societies which have always existed, not a social and economic relationship between workers and capital that didn't exist for the first 100,000-odd years of human history
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Part of me is worrisome that there is something brewing. Tea Party poo poo happened very suddenly all at once with fox news support and massive online infrastructure. It was nowhere until it was everywhere. I think it’s because the gop is kinda fractured in some way and trump is the only person who can pull a lot of the pieces together. The issue is the fence sitters and moderates dislike trump and are done with him after 2020 and you need them to get tea party to lift off into national prominence. Also trump isn’t going after the Dems or Biden, he is scamming the chuds and trying to primary his posting enemies. I think he will come back and do rallies but I suspect no venue wants him and and he doesn’t want to pay for them. Also Biden while doing the right things isn’t “controversial” like Obama was and a lot of the country have moved to the left somewhat on a lot of issues. So you don’t get the mainstream support of them. I think the gop broke its brain hard over the last 21 years or so. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 15:55 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Capitalism does no such thing, it is the accumulation of capital to the end of using it to grow into more capital by any means necessary with a rigidly self-enforcing mechanism that selects for shorter term gains. M -> C -> M' as Marx summarized it. You can use socialist principles strategically to slow it down, but at the end of the day it's a system that will never stop and demands an infinite supply of resources to work, which we obviously do not have, and will eventually overcome any restraints put on it because of the fundamental contradiction arising from the people being regulated having all the money, power, and agitprop channels. Any capitalist who does not seek to destroy anything constraining them will instead be destroyed by another who does, a selection process which has gotten us from Ricardo and Smith's views to Greenspan's and Rand's You're creating a pretty narrow definition of capitalism here. It's possible for there to be private ownership of capital without infinite growth, and it's possible for a strong government to regulate capital without being captured by it. I'm also not sure why you're drawing a distinction between commerce and capitalism? Commerce is a necessary condition of capitalism, so my point about incentivizing greed within a capitalist system still stands.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:I prefer the comedy answer. Republicans incompetence at managing covid, basic shite house staffing etc means that they are now simply incapable of organizing anything like that Republican politicians at the national level are absolutely a hollowed out husk, especially in the house. Not just in that they're crazy extremists or whatever, but that they're almost certainly not doing any work. Like the actual day to day of going to committee, reading documents, etc is almost certainly not happening on the house side. Am I supposed to believe that Madison Cawthron is reading a bunch of detailed budget reports about the VA? Or really cares at all about Federal funding for education initiatives? But that's not all that different from 2008/2009. Tea Party sorta occurred outside of the actual elected GOP apparatus. The tea party congressmen certainly weren't a part of the government when they got elected in 2010; they just owned like 2 quiznos in the middle of montana and got a bunch of money from /gestures broadly So republican incompetence aside I don't think that would stop it from happening again. Maybe the death of adelson and david koch really have just neutered that entire thing. Or maybe Obama really was just that hated for all the reasons and could tie the right together for another push. I will say that it's a huge loving deal that the GOP has become so stupid and incompetent at the organizational level. The house has always been a cluster, but it was never so bad that Kevin McCarthy was the smartest one. We all despise McConnell but he's not looking great and kentucky is clearly taking steps to mitigate his succession in the event something happens suddenly. What's going to happen to the GOP then? Or american politics in general? Is John Thune gonna be the one who carries the mantle of being able to coordinate...something? Like without Mitch does even that first Covid relief bill get passed?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Claims that capitalism is just human nature seem strange to me when capitalism wasn't invented until the 17th century or so. No one is saying capitalism is human nature, don't be obtuse. The point is that greed is human nature, and capitalism is a framework that works with that rather than against it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Republican politicians at the national level are absolutely a hollowed out husk, especially in the house. Not just in that they're crazy extremists or whatever, but that they're almost certainly not doing any work. Like the actual day to day of going to committee, reading documents, etc is almost certainly not happening on the house side. Am I supposed to believe that Madison Cawthron is reading a bunch of detailed budget reports about the VA? Or really cares at all about Federal funding for education initiatives?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Seph posted:You're creating a pretty narrow definition of capitalism here. It's possible for there to be private ownership of capital without infinite growth, and it's possible for a strong government to regulate capital without being captured by it. It's a necessary condition of every economic mode of production, and fully accounted for if one is utilizing historical materialism to plan the economy. As with every other, Capitalism promotes and facilitates certain kinds of greed and stomps out and discourages others. I personally do not believe it is a beast that can be chained, nor does it offer anything unique. It is very good at replicating itself, but that doesn't mean it's efficient or turns greed into a virtue. It just means it's good at replicating itself, in this case by burning through resources at an unsustainable rate and outcompeting systems tuned for lower growth or sustainability. There's a name for this phenomenon in biological systems. Most importantly though, as has been stated, it's far too recent to be the kind of immutable and inherently good force of human nature. Far more likely it's a burr on the side of the industrial revolution that has been allowed to implant when it should've been ripped off early. If there *IS* a system that constrains the beast for its benefits while keeping it from mauling the kids, it almost certainly is a lot closer to Dengism than it is Nordic Socialism
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Greed itself as some kind of driving factor is itself a hazy and problematic central thesis. Does it apply the same to zero sum propositions as to ones where nobody actually loses out? Am I being greedy if I refuse to turn my land over to extractors who would then use it to make electric car batteries, because I greedily don't want to leave my children a toxic waste dump? If I have the power to decide and decide an endangered fish is more important than a farmer's irrigation? These decisions are inherently anti-capitalist, and yet are motivated by greed. The argument only makes sense when applied after ideological constraints on what constitutes "greed" are put in place, and so it's practically a tautology to say Capitalism is unique among economic modes in that it harnesses instead of suppresses greed
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Seph posted:No one is saying capitalism is human nature, don't be obtuse. The point is that greed is human nature, and capitalism is a framework that works with that rather than against it. I'm not entirely certain greed is human nature either, hunter-gatherer societies weren't driven by desire for endless accumulation, for example. And the kind of greed that characterizes modern capitalism had to be imposed by force on much of the world. English peasants working collective farms had no interest in becoming capitalists and proletariat, the nobles had to use the army to force them off their lands in order to turn it into private property and turn the peasants into a landless proletariat. The English had similar problems colonizing Africa, the people there already created all they need and traded amongst each other so they had no need to sell to the English for British Pounds, so the solution was to impose taxes that could only be paid in currency and evict them from their land if they couldn't pay. Native Americans had to be genocided to bring North America into the capitalist system because their system of land ownership was not compatible with private capital, etc VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:16 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Claims that capitalism is just human nature seem strange to me when capitalism wasn't invented until the 17th century or so. Yeah I'm not going back to that poo poo though, hunting and gathering is hard and I do not enjoy doing it. Edit: I've spent enough time in the woods to know I don't want to go back to the loving woods. Edit edit: Seriously, it's cold and dark and there are loving bears there gently caress that poo poo. Space Cadet Omoly fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:It's a necessary condition of every economic mode of production, and fully accounted for if one is utilizing historical materialism to plan the economy. The problem with that is that to date, the use of historical materialism to plan economies has been pretty terrible. I accept that a huge problem is the amount of information and analysis that would be needed to plan (and execute) a planned economy, and that prior attempts were crippled by lousy data, and it may be that with the advent of mass information networks that results would be vastly improved. On the other hand, this isn't the Marxist Theory thread, and you're less compelling a defender of Marxism than Danny Goldstick, my Marxist Philosophy professor.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
human nature is to seek food to eat, water to drink, a roof over your head, and somewhere you can poo poo without having to think about the consequences. that sort of thing. not modes of economy lol.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
I dont think pre 17th century civs were hunter-gathers. neither were 15th, 5th, or the ancient greeks, Egyptians, China, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Greed itself as some kind of driving factor is itself a hazy and problematic central thesis. Does it apply the same to zero sum propositions as to ones where nobody actually loses out? Am I being greedy if I refuse to turn my land over to extractors who would then use it to make electric car batteries, because I greedily don't want to leave my children a toxic waste dump? If I have the power to decide and decide an endangered fish is more important than a farmer's irrigation? These decisions are inherently anti-capitalist, and yet are motivated by greed. The argument only makes sense when applied after ideological constraints on what constitutes "greed" are put in place, and so it's practically a tautology to say Capitalism is unique among economic modes in that it harnesses instead of suppresses greed Private ownership of land is a pretty core capitalist ideal, so I'm not sure I agree with your framing that having autonomy over your land would somehow be anti-capitalist. In this hypothetical, you are serving your own interests (whatever they may be) with your privately owned land. Just because your interests are different from a company's interests does not mean you are being anti-capitalist. If you want to get pedantic about the definition of greed, then maybe "self-interest" is a better term to use. People are always going to be looking out for their interests over others', and any system that ignores that fact is doomed to fail.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The problem with that is that to date, the use of historical materialism to plan economies has been pretty terrible. I accept that a huge problem is the amount of information and analysis that would be needed to plan (and execute) a planned economy, and that prior attempts were crippled by lousy data, and it may be that with the advent of mass information networks that results would be vastly improved. Compelling enough to get a response attacking a scholarship basis I never made lol. The fastest growing country in the 1900's that lifted the most people out of poverty was the USSR. In the 2000's so far it's been China, and I'd say if they weren't onto something with how central planning is being adopted to bring on new technology, our intelligence agencies wouldn't be so preoccupied with killing as many people as possible to ensure it doesn't happen anywhere else like with Cybersyn Sure they probably couldn't pump out stuff like the Juicero, but they'd most assuredly be the ones building them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
It's all just power grabs. Everyone wants to have power. Money only comes into play when it can be traded for power.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
Seph posted:Private ownership of land is a pretty core capitalist ideal, so I'm not sure I agree with your framing that having autonomy over your land would somehow be anti-capitalist. In this hypothetical, you are serving your own interests (whatever they may be) with your privately owned land. Just because your interests are different from a company's interests does not mean you are being anti-capitalist. My argument is that no system ignores it, and that greed is as likely to work against capitalists as for them, it's not some harnessing force. There are very few actual capitalists in this country relative to our population. As a wage-laborer, your greed will only be satisfied if it aligns with the interests of capital. Nationalized healthcare is also in my own self-interest, as is a UBI, and this is leaving aside the distinction being private and personal ownership. A very credible argument could be made that it is greed driving me to remove entirely the profit motive - the fundamental and actual basis of Capitalism - from those industries. In these cases, is my personal self-interest better aligned with Communism or Capitalism? Rainbow Knight posted:It's all just power grabs. Everyone wants to have power. Money only comes into play when it can be traded for power. That's politics for ya, a fight for the distribution of money and resources and the monopoly on violence. Start thinking it's anything else and you're losing ground.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:It’s not Deco’s fault that he exists. ... So what if he constantly gasps air through a brachycephalic mouth and farts all the time? I wonder what Deco's username is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Republican politicians at the national level are absolutely a hollowed out husk, especially in the house. Not just in that they're crazy extremists or whatever, but that they're almost certainly not doing any work. Like the actual day to day of going to committee, reading documents, etc is almost certainly not happening on the house side. Am I supposed to believe that Madison Cawthron is reading a bunch of detailed budget reports about the VA? Or really cares at all about Federal funding for education initiatives? Cawthorn in particular constantly tweets praising bills that passed that benefit people in his district , despite the fact that he voted against them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 16:42
|
|
