|
What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🦋 |
|
15 | 3.71% |
| 🦇 |
|
115 | 28.47% |
| 🪰 |
|
12 | 2.97% |
| 🐦 |
|
67 | 16.58% |
| dragonfly |
|
94 | 23.27% |
| 🦟 |
|
14 | 3.47% |
| 🐝 |
|
87 | 21.53% |
| Total: | 404 votes | ||
|
Also, part of fascism is about invention to address the gap, for example, the Nazis acquired nearly 4 billion Reichmarks from going after Jewish property and assets before the war began, peacetime MEFO bills, or the IRI.
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
There is still a joke in Germany that every german grandparent was in the resistance because it is still hard to accept that even the "normal" people were more than willing to support the Nazis in just about everything.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
There were still communists that kept their heads down but it wasn't an accident that the Center Party and the Monarchists largely went along with it. Everyone knew what was going on, it just went things were going well enough there wasn't a reason to care...until the 6th Army got surrounded at least.
Ardennes has issued a correction as of 07:05 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/martenkokk/status/1792110889841066040?t=8Rk8bMH9xGBDsJOkt-Bmtw&s=19 timothy is correct, the westoids are doing the same thing again, they threw donbass and palestine under the bus so they can keep selling bombs to the nazis
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
Truga posted:timothy is correct, the westoids are doing the same thing again, they threw donbass and palestine under the bus so they can keep selling bombs to the nazis I mean...I guess you could say they were selling bombs to themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
You don't even need to sell them heaps of weapons, just manufacture a situation where they're crying out for your wunderwaffe and the share price will go up!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It didn't matter what Hitler or his underlings believed, what mattered was what his bosses believed, and their beliefs weren't any different than their peers in Britain, the US, or France beyond the fact they were a bit more desperate. you cant just say the ideas of a society are the ideas of its ruling class, that’s illegal
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 01:04
|
|
|
hitler's bosses believed that germany was losing at imperialism and their governance was becoming unviable, so they tried to return to an age where germany was viable and their prospects good. everyone below was eager to go along with it because everyone feels the systemic decline, sometimes in tangible ways, sometimes ineffable ways. there's a kind of logic to it in that if what you're doing isn't working anymore, go back to when it worked. bing bong. except history isn't reversible, doubly so when you're trying to return to an imagined past that's, at best, equal parts real history, mistaken history, and fantasy. the details are historically particular, like how ukraine basically took mein kampf and crossed out "jews" and wrote in "russians," but the pattern is consistent. it isn't really that this party is liberal and that party is nazi, it's that everyone is becoming nazi. (or communist.) the more the west loses, the more nazi we become. I think the small core states are going hard first because the decline of the western empire hits them the hardest. outside the integrated whole of the imperial core, denmark is nothing. the baltics are nothing. we're much further along in the process than people like to admit, even if we're not quite at the "fun" parts, and they're the canaries in the coal mine.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 01:24
|
|
|
Zodium posted:I think the small core states are going hard first because the decline of the western empire hits them the hardest aka the israel thread
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
I guess Germany was kind of a victim of its own success in a way. Bismarck turns the place around, unites (most of) it under one state, disciplines labour after the scares of 1848, kicks the poo poo out of the French, and the industrial revolution makes German steel manufacturers a bazillion marks. So when the wheels start to come off a bit in the 1890s-1910s, they do it again but more this time, and then in the 1930s they do it again but even more this time.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Before the big fight: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/may/18/ukraine-divided-over-oleksandr-usyk-world-boxing-champion-facing-tyson-fury Ukrainians divided over Usyk, the world boxing champion facing Tyson Fury by Charlotte Higgins quote:On the streets of Kyiv this week, the name of the Ukrainian heavyweight boxer Oleksandr Usyk prompted a few eye-rolls, alongside expressions of admiration for his sporting prowess. After the big fight: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/19/ukraine-kyiv-kharkiv-reaction-oleksandr-usyk-boxing-champion ‘Proud and happy’: Ukrainians embrace Oleksandr Usyk’s boxing victory by Charlotte HIggins and Sam Jones quote:From the capital, Kyiv, to the heavily attacked region of Kharkiv, news of Oleksandr Usyk’s win over Tyson Fury brought war-weary Ukrainians a rare and very welcome moment of victory and celebration.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
Endman posted:I don’t think Nazis are liberals, though they are certainly a tool liberals are fond of using at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 04:46
|
|
|
I've never read Schmitt but this paraphrase stuck in mind from Jodi Dean's Comradequote:Carl Schmitt famously characterized liberalism as replacing politics with ethics and economics.22 Correlatively, we should note the displacement of politics specific to neoliberalism. There is individualized self-cultivation, self-management, self-reliance, self-absorption, and—at the same time—impersonal determining processes, circuits, and systems. We have responsible individuals, individuals who are responsibilized, treated as loci of autonomous choices and decisions, and we have individuals encountering situations that are utterly determining and outside their control. Instead of ethics and economics, neoliberalism’s displacement of politics manifests in the opposition between survivors and systems. The former struggle to persist in conditions of unlivability rather than to seize and transform these conditions. The latter are systems and “hyperobjects” determining us, often aesthetic objects or objects of a future aesthetics, things to view and diagram and predict and perhaps even mourn, but not to affect.23 mawarannahr has issued a correction as of 05:46 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
jeremy snyder and timothy corbyn
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 05:45
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:So when this is all over, and Russia gets whatever resolution they decide they want, does NATO/the west really just shrug their shoulders and go "whatever, we didn't care anyways"? Tom Guycot posted:Are they really just going to take that on the chin? Yep. Its this OP v Xaris posted:this is exactly whats going to happen, and already sort of is. well of course zelensky was always going to lose but we gave them a bloody nose and have a 1000:1 KDR!!. Cutting, running, stabbing some folks in the back, and pretending we never cared is exactly the western MO. Look at recent conflicts like the Kurds and Afganistan, there's a very long list beyond that. I get your general feelings, but what we've seen from western leadership over the last decade (perhaps longer) is that they're dead set in their ways and they don't really know what else to do. A zombie system shambling forwards with equally zeombified people pulling the levers. What we're going to see is Europe continue to be bleed to feed the imperial core, until it finally gets a backbone and starts to pivot east. That has more to do with the deathrows of neoliberalism than this conflict, though this conflict has helped immiserate Europe faster.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 06:15
|
|
|
fascism and liberalism are different political ideologies, but it is true that fascism is a child of liberalism so to speak in short, when the inevitable crises of capitalism get bad enough and liberalism can no longer sustain the bourgeois state it broadly speaking has two options, one is to buy off the working class to secure internal peace and the other is to turn to open and brutal violence to suppress it. the first of these leads to social democracy, the second to fascism (hence the famous social democracy being the moderate wing of fascism quote) what does set apart fascism from liberalism is that fascism forces capital into a junior position within the bourgeois state because at that point capital has already lost control, unlike liberalism where capital is ultimately in the driver's seat capital generally doesn't mind this too much because it's still a bourgeois state and having to go along with whatever dumb poo poo the fash decide to pull is less bad than losing everything in an actual socialist revolution, also it's generally quite profitable because labour is harshly disciplined and the fash are absolutely not averse to throwing massive amounts of money on armaments and various vanity projects which means good grifting opportunities in this sense it's somewhat inaccurate to talk about "hitler's bosses", because hitler was the boss and capital could not overrule him. but since he still ran a bourgeois state he definitely worked in the interests of capital even though it wasn't explicitly the main part of the fascist political project
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 07:10
|
|
|
If it is a bourgeois state, then by its nature, capital is in control and capital very much was directing the Third Reich. Everything being done from conquering and looting territory to liquidating first the assets then lives of the Jewish and other populations was in service of German industry; they also quickly pivoted in 1945 when the husk of the Reich collapsed on itself. All of the successors of IG Farben are still around.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 07:16
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:I've never read Schmitt but this paraphrase stuck in mind from Jodi Dean's Comrade Schmitt's core study was in his legalist doctrine - he criticized liberalism on a jurisprudence basis. It's worth it to note that fascism is a rejection and criticism of classical liberalism, though he by no means is the first and comes from a long line of thinkers. It's helpful to think of classical liberalism as the creation of "the political" from the Enlightenment. Particularly, if we focus the broad goal of turning people into political agents and decentralizing power from monarchies into the "General Will" as Rousseau would call it. The mechanism on how this would be achieved would be to categorically reject any sort of theological basis in any part of society, and thus place reason at the core of organization. Political liberalism was therefore the project of using reason to organize society in the best way possible, not by the whims of hereditary rulers and powerless feudal subjects. Anti-Enlightenmentent thinkers, of which there were many at the time, saw the tyranny that would emerge from this project - though Nietzsche is more than just that label, the idea of God being dead, and therefore the death of meaning, is partly a reaction to the dogma of mechanical, impersonal reason of the Enlightenment. Hegel is the first strike into the liberal project, where he notes the failure of the Jacobins and the success of the bourgeois were both a negative and positive development. As the pioneer of "dialectic" logic, Hegel will oppose the mere syllogistic mode of reason that the Enlightenment was based on - typified by Kant, where logic provided no context and empiricism was not interested in what actually animates human behavior. Thus, by looking at logic, and by extension the emprical world, as a "process", one in which tension between opposites is itself creation, it paves the way for historical materialism. What Schmitt does is continue in the tradition of Marx and Hegel by criticizing liberalism in the jurisprudence realm. He makes a few key observations: 1) liberalism depends on constitutions to grant power to the state, 2) liberalism is obsessed with rationality and reason and 3) liberalism assumes opposite poles can reach a compromise. For point 1- he makes the case that democracy is simply a "monarchy in waiting". Though a constitution supposedly sets limits to powers, and introduces checks and balances between competing forces, ultimately all it takes is for a crisis to undo that. He saw this happen throughout the 19th and 20th century and it's simply taken for granted now. An example of an emergency is when there is war - even though liberalism fiercely rejects a sovereign, out of practical necessity there needs to be a strong leader that has the capability to make unilateral and sweeping decisions without the meddling of others. Without such an ability, then a society will not be able to respond to an emergency. His point here is that a constitution is just window dressing. He makes a really interesting observation that in democracies, we don't see this power in peace and stability and only in times of emergencies. He makes the case that this is exactly what happens under monarchies - you are largely left alone by the King when things are normal. In this jurisprudential way, laws are temporary, absurd, and arbitrary as they can be immediately nullified by a head of state in a democratic system if there is an emergency.This is what eventually leads to an embrace of fascism of being a more "natural" type of system, where the reality is that a constitutional state is nothing more than an illusion. For point 2 - liberalism can only work in the framework of "reason". In a philosophical context, reason is the mode of epistemology where syllogistic and reductive forms of statements are made to justify valid truths. In the sociological sense, reason eschews the myths, superstitions and dogmas of a theologic society (specifically, a Christian one). Schmitt finds the obsession with reason to be why liberalism explodes in the "techno-cratic" bureaucrats of parliamentary democracies. He says: quote:Today, nothing is more modern than the onslaught against the political. American financiers, industrial technicians, Marxist socialists, and anarchic-syndicalist revolutionaries unite in demanding that the biased rule of politics over unbiased economic management be done away with. There must no longer be political problems, only organizational-technical and economic-sociological tasks. The kind of economic-technical thinking that prevails today is no longer capable of perceiving a political idea. The modern state seems to have actually become what Max Weber envisioned: a huge industrial plant. Though he finds Hegel and Marx revolutionary, this is where he draws the line between fascism and Marxism. Both systems agree that the "laissez-faire" systems of liberalism lead to exploitation and misery - Marx's viewpoint is that the Enlightenment didn't use reason correctly and instead needs to emphasize dialectics, where Schmitt says that reason is itself the root problem, dialectics or not. Schmitt offers some solutions here, but fascism's obsessions with the occult, eccentric and ancient are to harken back to pre-Enlightenment days before the reason was the primary operating principle of society. For point 3 - The most famous thesis of Schmitt is his friend/enemy dynamic. Summarized - liberal democracies promise that problems can be solved through reason. Freedom to debate, freedom of ideas, freedom of speech, freedom to associate - all of these are supposed to create a marketplace of ideas where 2 people can debate on opposite sides and come to a reasonable middle point. Like in science, where careful trials and repeated experiments lead to better results, getting us closer to the truth, so the political should operate. Schmitt found this completely flawed - instead, he posited that Hegel's dialectics is probably right - that these tensions don't create a third result, they sublate and lead to constant revolutions (no matter how small the disagreements are). Fundamentally, there can be no "middle position" between 2 sides on opposites sides of the spectrum - there can only be one winner. In this case, the winner is the one that can crush their opponent. Thus, liberalism creates not a harmonious society in which rational agents solve problems amicably through reasoned debate, but instead an extremely contentious and violent on in which warring factions are a permanent feature. This leads to the final fascist belief system, which is that power is the only thing that matters. A victorious idea is won through blood, sweat and tears, not through technocrats writing op-eds. In this way, a martial society is preferred, as the enemy can never be convinced, only crushed. After Schmitt joined the Nazi party, he became a hugely influential lawyer and philosopher of jurisprudence within the ranks. The phenomenon of modern liberals is that they have simply adopted these views into the technocratic order of the Anglo sphere. The explosion of executive power, especially once the President is able to wipe out the world with a nuclear football, is a tacit agreement that the fascists were largely correct. Constitutional crises are common and the political sphere is complete theater as everyone is quite aware that there can be no compromise between 2 widely separated groups. Within the specific quote of neoliberalism, I absolutely agree with it. Neoliberalism is an attempt to homogenize the world through the market - by economically dominating and creating systems that are beyond your control, a level of stability can be reached through domination by market factors. At the same time, neoliberalism creates a similar martial system, just an economic one - neolliberalism encourages and forces you to compete in carefully allowed ways (a nice car, a nice house, etc) to give you some locus of meaning. Ultimately, both systems are totalitarian in nature, but with neoliberalism cloaking itself in the language of the Enlightenemnt (freedom, choice, etc) rather than fascism (power, will, etc).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 07:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:If it is a bourgeois state, then by its nature, capital is in control and capital very much was directing the Third Reich. Everything being done from conquering and looting territory to liquidating first the assets then lives of the Jewish and other populations was in service of German industry; they also quickly pivoted in 1945 when the husk of the Reich collapsed on itself. All of the successors of IG Farben are still around. it benefited german industry, but that was a side effect of the main motivations of the nazis, i.e. blood and soil ultranationalism and anticommunism. capital was part of the ruling class and could steer policy to some extent, but it was not the main directing body like it is under liberalism what we have to remember here is that fascism is explicitly an anti-rational and anti-materialist ideology, and the nazis were driven by idealism and not some calculated long con to save capitalism from itself Cerebral Bore has issued a correction as of 07:50 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 07:47
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:it benefited german industry, but that was a side effect of the main motivations of the nazis, i.e. blood and soil ultranationalism and anticommunism. capital was part of the ruling class and could steer policy to some extent, but it was not the main directing body like it is under liberalism Fascism being "anti-rational" and "anti-materialist" is just misdirection by the West, there was a general rationale connected to reality for most of what the Nazis were doing. It just was extremely brutal and arguably shortsighted, but that doesn't mean it was anti-rational. It is more or less how the explanation for the West for Stalin, Mao, or pretty much everyone that gets in the West's way is that they are crazies and wizards. There is an explanation for all of this. If you read Wages of Destruction, the Nazi come off as a recognizable government that has gone to the extremes to achieve their objectives. There is a reason for the Nuremberg Laws, MEFO bills, re-militarization, and then Generalplan Ost. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 08:02 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 07:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Fascism being "anti-rational" and "anti-materialist" is just misdirection by the West, there was a general rationale connected to reality for most of what the Nazis were doing. It just was extremely brutal and arguably shortsighted, but that doesn't mean it was anti-rational. I think "anti-rational" in this sense is that they were operating on values beyond the merely technocratic - IE: blood and soil soaked nationalism and the racial obsessions were in line with the Geist of German Idealism and Romantic ideas of Goethe. In a philosophical sense, fascism is a rejection of reason, but in a practical sense, of course they still had to make the trains run on time. The way they tried to combine all of these things is contradictory and convoluted, which is why it's such a stupid ideology and led to its political downfall.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:13
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:ee: Anyway, I can link the book again, but the reason they need Nazis to backstop colour revolutions now is that these feckless technocrats immediately crank up the austerity and privatization causing people to despise them and throw them out in the next election. Like Ukraine, Georgia already had a colour revolution, which according to plan, sent troops to Iraq, pledged to join NATO, privatized everything that wasn't nailed down and started a war with Russia. For it to really stick, they need some sort of Nazi contingent, so I suppose keep an eye out for them to appear. nazis are a revolutionary vanguard for liberalism Zodium posted:one of the ways nazis behave differently from liberals is that they start trying to reproduce the conditions of a romanticized past, such as by insisting everyone must love stegt flæsk and adam oelenschläger, which doesn't really have anything to do with advancing liberalism the way income and degrees do. nazis are also a reactionary guard for liberalism liberalism has no guiding ethos to motivate the people, no grand uniting principle to inspire, because liberalism fundamentally does not give a poo poo about the people beyond the demand that they continue generating wealth and prestige for the elites. Any time liberalism is threatened, or wants to expand, it needs to manufacture a rallying cry because it has nothing to offer in and of itself. Nobody is going to fight and die for market rate insurance and the freedom of pop journalism. Instead liberalism reaches for a manufactured remembrance of an idealized past and uses that to recruit So yes, technically liberals arent nazis, they just create and work alongside nazis as needed to defend their interests
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Fascism being "anti-rational" and "anti-materialist" is just misdirection by the West, there was a general rationale connected to reality for most of what the Nazis were doing. It just was extremely brutal and arguably shortsighted, but that doesn't mean it was anti-rational. buddy, they literally started a war against the rest of the world and expected to win purely through willpower and inherent racial superiority
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:20
|
|
|
dk2m posted:I think "anti-rational" in this sense is that they were operating on values beyond the merely technocratic - IE: blood and soil soaked nationalism and the racial obsessions were in line with the Geist of German Idealism and Romantic ideas of Goethe. In a philosophical sense, fascism is a rejection of reason, but in a practical sense, of course they still had to make the trains run on time. The way they tried to combine all of these things is contradictory and convoluted, which is why it's such a stupid ideology and led to its political downfall. Blood and soil soaked nationalism and racist obsessions were around in Germany before the Nazis, it is just apart of liberalism itself under the right conditions. It is a rejection of the language of reason in the service what is at the core of liberalism, capital accumulation. Cerebral Bore posted:buddy, they literally started a war against the rest of the world and expected to win purely through willpower and inherent racial superiority The Germans were pretty desperate to sign a treaty with the British, and they declared war against the US because it was already inevitable at that point. The drive into the Soviet Union, while doomed was very much playing off what Imperial Germany had opened to accomplish in the East, they very clearly just underestimated the Soviets/Russians. But that is practically a cultural tradition in the West at this point. Also to be honest, while the Nazis weren't going to beat the Soviets....it isn't like didn't completely dumpster the rest of Europe. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 08:27 on May 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:24
|
|
|
is your argument that nazi germany went and dug its own grave, but rationally?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:27
|
|
|
One of the fun inherent contradictions of liberalism is that because it has no greater organizing principle for the people, once the liberal elite summons a horde of fascists to protect and expand its influence there is no inherent defense against the fascists just kinda taking over. Its an inevitable betrayal anyone can see coming but the cycle is doomed to repeat because its the only move they have in response to any serious threat
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:28
|
|
|
motherfuckers running the country keep on screaming about how war and death is pure and noble and how they want it so and try to shape their entire society around this concept, but actually that's just a smokescreen for their real plans for rationally saving capitalism
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:32
|
|
|
fascist death drive? more like fascist smart drive 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:is your argument that nazi germany went and dug its own grave, but rationally? Rationally from my perspective, no, but there was a rationale from their end, someone can be wrong and still have a thought process that isn't completely without logic. I wouldn't support a genocidial war to increase profile margins, but if you were going to do that, it is probably going to look like the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:33
|
|
|
Fascist SSD
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:34
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:motherfuckers running the country keep on screaming about how war and death is pure and noble and how they want it so and try to shape their entire society around this concept, but actually that's just a smokescreen for their real plans for rationally saving capitalism thanks, hwat this topic really needed was a huge injection of aids
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Rationally from my perspective, no, but there was a rationale from their end, someone can be wrong and still have a thought process that isn't completely without logic. I wouldn't support a genocidial war to increase profile margins, but if you were going to do that, it is probably going to look like the Nazis. hate to break it to you, but just because you have a reason for your actions doesn't necessarily make your actions rational
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:35
|
|
|
fascism is actually magical and cant be explained by material causes. sorry everyone
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:hate to break it to you, but just because you have a reason for your actions doesn't necessarily make your actions rational How rational is liberalism in itself? For all of talk of reason, what is exactly at the core of it? The Nazis are when you shake off the excess verbiage and get down to what is actually at the heart of it, complete brutality.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:it benefited german industry, but that was a side effect of the main motivations of the nazis, i.e. blood and soil ultranationalism and anticommunism. capital was part of the ruling class and could steer policy to some extent, but it was not the main directing body like it is under liberalism again michael parenttis documentary is pretty good, you should watch it because its a pretty short summary: https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/how-fascism-serves-capitalism/ though i disagree about the leadership cult. i don't think the fuherprinzip was actually all that important or relevant
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:43
|
|
|
dk2m posted:What Schmitt does is continue in the tradition of Marx and Hegel by criticizing liberalism in the jurisprudence realm. He makes a few key observations: 1) liberalism depends on constitutions to grant power to the state, 2) liberalism is obsessed with rationality and reason and 3) liberalism assumes opposite poles can reach a compromise. excellent post
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 08:51
|
|
|
France riles allies by inviting Russia to D-Day ceremonyquote:PARIS — France’s decision to invite Russia to attend the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings has stoked tensions with allied nations as leaders prepare to gather on the Normandy beaches on June 6. god history really has been rewritten into we fought the wrong country in WW2
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 09:13
|
|
|
Comes to mind people talking about liberals weaponising the language and ideas of therapy and 'wellness' in the succ zone, and how much comes down to how liberals don't want to and often can't perceive anything can be a material problem (except when it presents an obstacle to their personal goals). Especially after the fall of the USSR when they were presented with the narrative that they'd Won the game of History, and real problems don't exist anymore, it's time to cash in forever. Thus the only real problems can be the ones made up for attention, and you just need to create the correct vibes to make people stop whining. And of course this inevitably ends in all kinds of crisis when all the people who quietly recognised and dealt with actual material problems have all died or been sidelined and the current generations of the ruling class completely buy into their own bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 09:25
|
|
|
Xaris posted:except it really was. all the big german corporations like ig farben, rhinemittal, vw, you name it, basically ran the government. all the slave labor was basically just handing them to the corporations to run the factories and leased to them, everytime a prisoner was transported to a camp the government paid fees to the corporations, the gas chambers basically had fees that the government was paying corporations to run. the anticommunism, and also anti-trade unions, was not some spontaneous "fascist" nationalism or whatever, it was the bourgeois needing to stamp out impedance in maximizing capital. We really need a big thing about how Nazi Germany was a corporate state to loving Shadowrun levels.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Jel Shaker posted:France riles allies by inviting Russia to D-Day ceremony I'm glad our batch of dumbass failsons think that playing all sides is how you can diplomatically succeed but maybe France would have an easier time acting as a bridge between NATO and Russia if we hadn't loving done so much dumb bullshit to make them our enemies in those last few years. Ghost Leviathan posted:We really need a big thing about how Nazi Germany was a corporate state to loving Shadowrun levels. okay so russians are orcs, corporate dragons are germans uh... am I keeping up with the deep lore properly?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 09:32
|
|
