Comments by "john" (@Pistolita221) on "More Perfect Union"
channel.
-
35
-
17
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
6
-
@UnyonRing The US is the one that initially built the grid? The feds fund the grid, through congress and everything. It's part of the budget, bunch of welfare queens if you ask me. Infrastructure has the right incentives when the government provides it, and the wrong incentives when private industry has control. Nobody competes for infrastructure, it's territorial for the most part. They have no competition, the legal duty to turn a profit, and a market that HAS to have their product. The government doesn't want to lose taxable hours to a faulty grid, but an energy provider? Just like everyone else, they're in the business of giving the minimum service for the maximum cost to the end user. Which works great for non-captive markets, of which there are many. The federal government is involved in grid expansion planning and funding, they enforce national standards, etc. they are intimately involved in all utility providers affairs. It's pretty disingenuous of you to claim the government can't do it, when they already are (doing it, the grid) with more paperwork so that the hydra Edison Electric can tax us all. The government can run infrastructure, they built the highways and rails and parts of the grid and telecom, IDK why you think more electricity would be so impossible. You know what's difficult? Making an actual hypersonic ASM, and the USA defense complex has groomed companies to produce them (a lot of research is done at military facilities and research at public universities). We can do it, it's about the political will to challenge Edison & Co.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MichelleHell "Communism as a political ideology is about a fight against a global form of indebtedness to property"
No, communism is the government controlling production, in practice. That CAN be good, but it can also be bad. Government intervention isn't INHERENTLY good, ask Native Americans or POC if the government's intervention has always had positive impacts on all citizens.
"The same thing that happens locally, happens between nations, with regards to trade relations and debt."
International trade is not comparable to interpersonal or regional trade. The amount of paper work, the way the agreement is reached, the on the ground physical representation of the trade, etc. all completely dissimilar.
"Communists are working in an imperfect and hostile world, where people refuse to understand them and why they exist."
Most communists, like most people are idiots. Big words to say nothing. They don't understand the logistics system, so they can't effect a material change. I am economically socialist/bordering communist and socially libertarian, but I can't stand identity politics and Hegelian dialectics.
"How does Vietnam do a classless moneyless society when the US is bombing them and then sanctions them after the war unless they restructure their economy to be "crony" capitalist?"
Capitalism is not the boogyman. It's oligarchy, not capitalism. Old school libertarians are for making trading partners not bombing brown people's 5,000 year old holy sites. It's OLIGARCHY, and they call themselves capitalists so rubes think they earned their money, and you're aiding that charade by calling them capitalists. THEY DID NOT WIN THE GAME THEY RIGGED IT. They sabotage competition with selective regulatory enforcement, get bailouts when they fail, get packages to update essential infrastructure, etc. It would be more capitalist for the USA's bailouts to have purchased the corpos they kept afloat. Actually THINK about what capitalisms definition is, and then think about all the government handouts for billionaires, and try to square that. It's a completely controlled economy. Why do you keep claiming they did something to get this money? They didn't even come up with the strategies!!! They are helpless toddlers, many literally in diapers.
"How does the USSR do the same when the Nazis are targeting them?"
Oh, so the USSR wasn't a TRUE communist nation, but the USA is a TRUE capitalist nation? Why make that distinction for one and not the other?
"War is the means by which the moneyless globally are rendered into service to capital."
Oligarchs, not capital. Capital is an object without consciousness, oligarchs manage the capital and means of production.
"And war comes in the form of blockades through trade alliances too."
...you mean to tell me war can be fought through ECONOMIC MEANS? Waaah, far out. I'll have to tell the phoenicians circa 1,200BCE.
2
-
@MichelleHell "Financial games are the logical conclusion to capitalism"
No, they are power games and they are ever-present in all groups above a certain size.
" Capitalists operate"
You're giving them too much credit, they didn't work for that money. They inherited it, they wish they were clever enough to earn that much money, make a new corporation, have a new idea, etc. but they don't, so they park their wealth in money management firms that hire actually intelligent working class people to make the money for them. 1/2 of these CEO's should have been out of a job in 2009, but they got a government hand-out.
"Accumulation of property under capitalism is the accumulation of money,"
No, it's accumulation of wealth and power. It is not money, money is liquid, their wealth comes from securities, commodities and property which are a different asset class. Eat the rich, but know what you're eating.
"The monied society has within it the bankrupted, who make up the moneyless aspect within."
Wrong, the rich are a fatty tumor. They produce nothing, they invent nothing, they are worthless from a utilitarian perspective. They exist by our (the proletariat's) grace. They are a house cat, incapable of doing anything for themselves yet utterly convinced of their superiority.
"As a result, we get the ideology of the moneyless people and their organizing efforts to attain freedom as bankrupted people within an indebted world order."
It's a hall of mirrors, not a true battle. The issue is getting enough of the population to move as one long enough to get something done, not actually dethroning the monarch, or oligarch in this case.
"Capitalism creates its antithesis when it enriches people AND when it bankrupts people."
Any unmaintained socio-economic system will enable the worst to gravitate to positions of power.
"The new thesis is socialism, where money is used for general public welfare, which includes various forms of trade and ownership models that are more broadly spread across the population."
Socialism is not a silver bullet. If we allow unions to become the new oligarchies, they will do that. If we allow the government to become tyrannical because we're politically atomized and apathetic, the wicked will once again do what they always do, it's human nature not capitalism. Capitalism makes the best culture and luxury goods. We need socialism for inelastic demand, but some degree of capitalism for everything else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnT.4321 "Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production"
What about my end goal was not collective ownership? lmao.
"The socialist government does not buy out the shareholders."
Yes, they can. That is the most peaceful way to seize the means of production. How do you intend to take it from them, otherwise? With force? You're going to violently overthrow the US government? Good luck with that one, bruv.
"It takes capitalist private property and nationalizes it."
What about my plan didn't do this? Is it missing some Maoism or Leninism, to kill off the doctors? What plan do you even have which actively denies Marx's theory on the division of labor? Doctors are better at being doctors, they don't need to farm.
"Power to the workers when they organize politically and economically."
How do you plan to organize? Through what group do you intend to congregate under and to what SPECIFIC POLICY GOALS do you have? How do you expect to get them into law, be it this government or the new one once you overthrow the US military and intelligence apparatuses? How do you intend to organize in a way that doesn't allow the movement to be fractured and destroyed like the hippies, civil rights activists, punks, gangs, etc.? Assuming you can answer that, what's your battle plan to take the nation? What materials do you need, how long will it take, what are some primary objectives? Lmao, or is this 'glorious revolution' too real for you now?
"That is the actual two edge sword to defeat capitalism."
Ugh, I don't even think you have any concepts on how a post scarcity society would ACTUALLY function, let alone a totally command economy. Complete command economics is terrible. It has never worked and I really can't imagine it working, especially not jumping from Roman/English/American legal structure, skipping post scarcity, and going STRAIGHT to total command. No one knows how to do that equitably, and in the past it has lead to some of the worst authoritarianism in recent history.
Try outlining some policy solutions instead of saying "that's not socialist enough", if you can. But I know a lot of trendy leftists think economics and logistics management is bourgeoise decadence.
2
-
Claiming it for the workers basically means the government buys out the shareholders and we elect the board of directors the way we elect senators, sort of. But it's better than a senator, cause we know what we vote on when we're electing the head of the US auto manufacturing industry, as opposed to senators who vote on EVERYTHING from social, to economic, to regulatory to foreign policy and it's luck of the draw who ends up on what committee. The system as it is is SO opaque it breeds corruption. We're not waging a war, and the only organization with the ability to manage and enforce this transfer is the federal government itself. Buy them out then sue them for crimes against humanity and c suite for treason. Clean it up correctly in a way that helps workers and instills faith in the justice system AVOIDING a violent transfer of power while still offering restorative justice ; we don't want things plunged into chaos by trying to create a new center of physical power. It starts with getting money out of elections, and we keep pushing for election reform until they're clean elections with incomes that pay enough they're incentivized to not risk employment (it's ridiculous to me that the most powerful politicians make pennies compared to CEO's based on their LEGAL income). Then we can start voting to delegate their powers away, once the elections are clean. We should probably push the big-tech anti-trust first, so we have better access to information and organization as a part of our preparation for governmental reform. But yeah, I really like the idea of getting rid of or seriously limiting congress and the senate's power, and having state ownership of anything considered a utility or infrastructure, and electing their board based on federal court districts (for national utilities like electric, telecom, interstate transit infrastructure, and big tech). And then IDK how I'd make the smaller districts for water, IDK if I'd change it, aren't water commissioners elected usually? State governments should reform similarly, the state does more than settle land disputes, lol. You don't grow your own medicine like they did back in the 1800's. Division of labor and all that.
2
-
I hope there are exemptions for trade schools. Unions pay you to go to trade school, they can only offer that with non-compete clauses to make their money back in union dues. And most people who go to trade school couldn't afford college, and the equipment, and experts time costs I imagine similar to what college costs in terms of hr/cost per student. But if you can go through union schools then hop over to a similar paying job without union dues, you make more because dues cost a lot, but you get education, collectivized bargaining, and protections from safety to overtime pay. That is infrastructure that costs money, this could hurt unions as much as Right to Work without union exemptions of some sort, even if it's temporary/pay as you go debt repayment, or something else but yeah, trade schools will either have to charge or they might disappear. Which would be a loss for organized labor, even if it does help people in other industries/jobs. The economy is complex af.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@BetaKeja We should elect the board of directors of nationalized corporations with nation-wide service, via federal court districts. 13 federal court districts, means 13 board members. I think a 4-8 year terms seems best, cause infrastructure takes time to be built and be properly normalized into the system. I don't like the idea of term limits personally, I think the bar should be raised each election, though. Meaning you need 60% to win your 3rd term, and it increases by x% (my guess would be about 5% increase, but it's just a conversation starter, really) until you reach the percentage cap we decide upon, I think somewhere between 75% and 90% for a 10x incumbent to win sounds reasonable. Not technically impossible to win, but unlikely, to encourage new thinking in our systemic management. I have lots of ideas on election and general systemic reform.
Why should we allow at&t and other ISP's to be publicly traded so hostile foreign powers can buy influence? It's a national security issue. It's also a personal freedoms issue. Your ISP has a legal duty to make money when they're publicly traded, they have a legal obligation to the constitution and therefor free speech if they are federally owned. And, it'd be good for the economy. And for the individual, in a humanitarian way, but most conservatives don't care about the humanitarian argument, so I don't use it very often.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@grendal616 managers don't produce workers, lmao. They're not breeders. And we're talking about the CEO, not middle management who place orders to stock stores, do quality inspections, actually train workers, etc. I'm talking about multinational CEO's, the globalists who go to Davos with Soros, like Ford's, Rockefellers, and the CEO's of their subsidiary companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, or the Waltons, or Bill Gates, of the CEO of Monsanto, that's who you're defending, not small business owners, and especially not the craftsmen in small businesses.
1
-
No, CO2's IR absorption rate is known. The thermal energy can be calculated, but the impacts and specific hot spots that travel around the jetstreamwhich is weather are not very predictable.
"After reading up on Lakatos, I question whether the climate change theory can even be described as a scientific theory given the difficulty, if not impossibility, of refuting or falsifying the anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change premise."
You're right, you can't refute or falsify AGW. It's a mathematic equation.
"But the test that provides corroboration for any given theory is how well it survives an honest attempt to falsify it."
They make predictions based on expected CO2 emissions, and they make multiple models for multiple possible rates of emission. The models that track emissions most accurately, also most accurately correlate with expected temperature rise. The Henson Projections 1988 Model B.
"Nobody ever seems to present a high empirical content scenario whereby climate change should be considered falsified."
Did you just say that 'because no one has worked backwards to prove my conclusion, the PROVEN SCIENCE is bad'? Nobody presents high empirical evidence where climate change should be considered false because no such data exists. But that's bad science because your fefes?
"Could that be because the theory would fail such a test and then the theory would have to be abandoned or significantly modified?"
lmao you already gave away your game. Why doesn't NASA agree with my opinions? Didn't they hear Mitch McConnell, AGW isn't real, it's just a political issue. lmao, sad,
1
-
1
-
1
-
@skyisreallyhigh3333 "You know who we did that for essentially? Slave owners. We do not and should not reward these people in any way."
Dumb💩 did you not get to the part where I said they should be tried for crimes against humanity & C suite for Treason, which includes death? Does that sound like paying them and them getting off scott free, to you? Or does it sound more like an actionable long term plan for radical change?
"So its either buy it all out and keep them insanely wealthy, or toppling the US government."
Seems like you're conveniently ignoring the part where i said TRY THEM FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANIY AND TREASON. I described a long game, it could happen over a generation's lifetime, though. Or we could try your "glorious revolution" and maybe over the course of a lifetime we rebuild from the war, or maybe we end with a military dictatorship like Stalin and Mao that drains our intellectual base and causes supply chain issues with mandated allotments of bread, creating inflexibility for the impending climate crisis. Please, please please stop with this maoist crap.
"The US as a political project must come to an end. "
HOW DO YOU DO THAT?! You don't is how. So you'll get no change. You're a part of the co-opting of leftist policy. You're not armed or organized, and you're not a majority. You're probably some not poor, young white person who's never seen just what the cops can do, let alone SWAT or national guard. I had family in detroit during the riots, you don't want something worse than that.
"We could try out worker councils instead."
I don't like the idea of someone who is unaccountable to me controlling my access to fresh water, actually. So I'd rather elect that person, so they serve the community not themselves. Utilities are utilities because they need to be accountable to the people they serve, it's not a luxury, you could die without access to most utilities and your standard of living is much worse, as well as medical and mental health outcomes. Worker democracies are cool for non-utilities. Walmart would be a prime candidate imo. If amazon was broken up into separate companies, those separate companies could probably do well under a worker democracy. I also like unions a lot, I generally prefer stronger unions because I think they're more scalable for large companies.
"You can not clean up the capitalist system."
You don't know anything about capitalism, I'm no expert but I LAP YOU on logistics management, economics and probably ecology and global warming. You're spouting opinions you've heard online, you didn't research how the material system functions to try to understand why it is, or the limits to the systems flexibility. You think products appear and there's no labor or material that goes into it, so it could appear for everyone like it does for you. That is not the case.
"No one should have faith in the justice system for there was never any reason to have faith in it in the first place."
Very poetic, but not useful. You genuinely think that crime wouldn't increase if we GOT RID of the justice system, so it would be mob rule? Do you know who The Mob is? They're in your town, and they're not very nice people; just FYI. We want them limited to the shadows. They're one of the best arguments in favor of legalizing and banking SW and drugs. Lmao, no justice system, no reform. SO childish, life needs to break you and I'm sure it will. But you need to practice ACTUAL material analysis while it does so you grow instead of becoming bitter, you know MATERIAL analysis where you study the physical world, as in how things are made so you can have coherent and relevant thoughts on how the systems should be managed.
"Corporations use very similar models that the USSR did"
Are you using Corporate Towns which were outlawed as proof that command economics works for the proletariat? Do you hear yourself?
"You clearly know nothing about leftists. You sound like you have gobbled up a shit ton of capitalist propaganda and have yet to deprogram yourself."
I literally said the bourgeoise should be stripped of their money and sentenced to be hanged, but it was said in legalese. Did you not know treason is punishable by death? You think after losing control of the means of production, being heavily taxed, losing their cash to the government via trial, and being sentenced to death is "gobbling the capitalist propaganda"? LMFAO OMG W'S IN CHAT.
1
-
1
-
@brandon9172 Because the owner class will use their private security contracts (Pinkertons intelligence, Acadami military engagements, AUSS for holding territory if the PD isn't on board, and others), gang connections, arms companies, etc. to wage war to maintain power. They threatened FDR during the depression and made him weaken the New Deal policies, I don't think their intelligence network is in worse shape today with Google, Apple and Amazon. They co-opted the German socialist revolution after WWI and turned it into fascism. They co-opted the Socialists in Russia and consolidated power to form the Soviet Union. There is a long history of military interventions working out in favor of the bourgeoise. Also, armies NEED a strict hierarchy to ensure they keep secrets and to avoid friendly fire. It also makes change of battle plans much faster to enact than a democratized system, so strict hierarchies win wars. But strict hierarchies do not lend themselves to socialism. Why would the general who won the war step down? Would this new army even remain unified when the person in charge is swapped out, before there is precedence and an established order? We got SO lucky with George Washington for all his shortcomings, that he was willing to step down. Will we roll another nat 20 after the next catastrophic revolutionary war? IDK about that (it's possible, though). I'm not sure it's worth risking war with the most powerful armies in the world to find out, either. As much as I do understand that radical change is DESPERATELY needed RIGHT NOW both for humanitarian/economic issues, social issues, political structure, and climate change. But I just can't see a forceful overthrowing of the government having good enough odds for a positive outcome to actually be worth the INSANE level of risk in challenging "the powers that be".
It is unfortunate that (as I understand things) the process needs to be long and drawn out, I REALLY had my heart set on "glorious revolution" for a half a decade after high school, but I realized how unrealistic and ineffective that has the potential to be. Plus the constitution is pretty cool, a lot of the people who wrote it are bad people (especially by todays standards) but JUST THE WRITING TAKEN AS IT IS WRITTEN is actually remarkably based. Would the next constitution be that much better? Who's writing it? What are some concepts we want to work into it? Forcefully replacing the system is not the right way to get the best odds of enacting the most positive change, in my opinion. So i tried to come up with another plan to achieve the exact same ends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichelleHell Capitalism is fitness and communism is truth? lmao, I'm sorry that's just comically reductive. Which communism and which capitalism, and then how are they fitness and truth respectively?
"The more exploited you've been, the more traumatized you become, the more you want to live a life free of money"
Why are you making such broad sweeping generalizations? That's just not true. Some people join gangs or start cut-throat businesses and get paid, but they're bad people. Some people figure out/get lucky and make it out, and don't critically look back. You're describing YOUR journey and it's valid, but let's not make sweeping generalizations as an argument.
What scares me about tribal societies being replicated in todays world? Well, tribes can have their own unique language. We live in a globalized world. Tribes don't have formal courts, they don't have formal contracts, or formal ways to enforce contracts. They exist without currency, often. Do you like your phone? They don't want bread, they want money for that phone. Tribes often follow religion and tradition more than science, which I think we can all agree is problematic. I generally don't want to die of exposure, which is more common in those communities. Sure, the cooperation is something we desperately need but let's not pretend tribal governance would maintain the incredibly complex logistics supply chain that allows us to live such relatively comfortable lives.
I'm saying wahabist terrorist groups aren't representative of islam. Or that what priests do to kids to make the news is not in accordance with Christianity. Like, yeah they wear the flag and we can't remove it but we can also acknowledge the letter of the word and how their actions don't align. I think that's typically the best argument to make to get someone to change their behavior.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MichelleHell Democratic government intervention has the potential to curb corruption. Communism&socialism are just as susceptible. They are fine systems, a major improvement on what we currently have IF implemented correctly, which requires democracy. There can be worker democracies within capitalism, it is arguable that some degree of control creates a freer market than an unregulated one.
Depression and suicide are not INHERENT in capitalism. You're not understanding my point. It's ALL nuance. I'm not all in on capitalism or communism, they both have good traits I'd like to borrow from but neither system is a "fire and forget" deal, maintaining a healthy government is a FULL TIME JOB for ALL citizens. Whatever system we have, we need to be conscious of it. Like the mega-corps that run the world from behind the scenes like DTCC, BNY Mellon, ASML, Investor AB or Hearst Media? You need to know the systems and how they work before you try to change them. Otherwise you're grasping at smoke.
I don't believe in great man theory, I am saying that calling them capitalists is too generous. They are the welfare queens, their market share protected by selective regulations, their failures subsidized. No one else gets that level of government intervention on economic matters than the rich. I am saying call a spade a spade, they are OLIGARCHS NOT CAPOTALISTS.
Corruption has existed in every societal system humans have ever created. It is not JUST capitalism. Even in basic tribal societies people make dirty deals.
1
-
@MichelleHell "Who is being apathetic, the one who defends the banner and ideology of capitalism, or the one who has actually tried to start their own business to be run equitably?"
Your example doesn't really work here.
"The ideology of capitalism is not teaching people about capitalism."
What??? That's quite the assumption.
"I didn't learn anything until Marxists taught me, and then I was able to use my experience and understand how and why the system is corrupt"
It's more complex than you assume. The poor management is a result of people with bad incentives, not a feature inherent to capitalism. Stalin was awful, too. Lenin, Mao, all horrific leaders. The USA did more harm globally, but they treated their citizens better. Even african americans were treated better than 50% or more of the chinese population between 1964 till the 1990's. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need more democracy first and foremost, and government intervention second, because it needs to follow the will of the people in order for it to have any chance at being just and equitable.
"No capitalist or believer in capitalism ever convinced me anything except the desire to escape a system of deep ignorance."
That's because they're pro-oligarchy not pro-capitalism. Oligarchy is indefensible, capitalism does have some merit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Most of the online space is more interested in making content than solid ideas and on the ground organizing. I understand, if it's your job you have to make money to eat. I was turned off by how hostile FD was to the criticism that the left could do better at reaching out to the rust belt and middle america. The concept of material conditions is not applied when thinking about the dirt poor rural people who happen to be white christians. It strikes me as essentialism. The left has the objectively correct answers, they just have to figure out how to reach the demographic, and FD seems VERY opposed to even entertaining that concept (in the whole of the online left?). And I, as an atheist, mixed but mostly passing able bodied man get a lot of unpleasant responses from some leftists, even though I grew up in the bottom 10-15% of US income, so most leftists grew up with way more privilege than I have/had, and the gaslighting is infuriating. Like, we need healthcare, food and shelter, not all this wish washy culture wars BS. If we had free mental healthcare the whole nation would shift left, almost overnight. But we can't play that long, indirect game, for some reason.
1
-
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 I'm with you on the coalition building, but I think the left's greatest issue is branding. Fighting climate change is degrowth, trans activism lacks the nuance it needs to convince people, gun regulation is supported by a majority of NRA members, why can't democrats convince NRA members to vote in their own interest> Cause our rhetoric sucks, and our community building is basically non-existent.
I have found republicans have a harder time saying people shouldn't get free food and shelter when you introduce it by asking if there's a max number of people they'd be willing to house via the prison system, then ask why only criminals are the only americans guaranteed basic food and shelter. Republicans think communism is oligarchy, republicans think the 09 bailouts were communism, they think overbearing regulation is inherent in communism, but that's just not true, at all. They hate Monsanto, and they don't like the Iraq war. They hate the Sacklers. We are ostensibly on the same side. And, imo it's our fault for letting the alt-right choose the framing. The idea that we have to convince them is BS, they're in agreement. We have to effectively explain ourselves and show our understanding of the concept material analysis.
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Right? Imo, the cultural divide seems to be the right wing pundits (bourgeoise to the left, globalists to the right, aristocrats historically) intentionally misattributing symptoms of the oligarchy's mismanagement. Like, they're worried about the kids but they can't accept that it's guns or a mental health crisis so they go after whatever new cultural phenomena is the least understood. It's not climate change causing supply chain issues, it's the CHINESE. It's not corporations raising prices when inflation makes headlines to give them excuses to raise prices EVEN MORE, it's government interference.
I think a major issue is that while we do have mostly aligned economic interests, the difference in lifestyles between rural and city, and language divides make it more difficult to reach across to them. The left needs to go there and just listen for a while, and then work WITH the rural folks on policy they'd support, rather than coming in and being prescriptive from the beginning and running the risk of appearing patronizing.
It is a weird situation, indeed. Civilization has gotten SO ridiculously complex. Our financial system is so complex, no one knows how it works, so they can't effectively reform it. I find the foreign influence is a better argument to convince conservatives to nationalize major corporations. Why would the USA leave essential infrastructure like information and electricity open to Chinese or other Eastern interference via buying controlling interest in companies. Major institutions that make the world run are not known, like DTCC and ASML, probably the 2 most powerful companies in the world. Individually, they are more powerful than the entire Business Roundtable.
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 I also just want to point out how weird it is conservatives are always talking about someone else's junk. I cannot comprehend how a group that's actually sex-averse can be so obsessed with what other people do in the bedroom. Whenever they bring it up, I always say "#1 freedom, and #2, really weird, why do you want to make me talk about someone elses sex life/identity, who isn't even in the room? it's creepy and voyeuristic." it shuts down the conversation real quick, and puts the pressure on them to justify themselves, but internally. It's actually quite accusatory, while remaining polite and you're taking yourself the moral high ground, even from their perspective. You can throw in some bible verses about not judging, for effect. lol, make them contend with their own script. Or maybe not you, but the left should as a rhetorical tactic, generally. Cause the bible should be our ally in this. The protestants who founded this country laid the ideological groundwork for Karl Marx, I shit you not. They came up with the concept of a classless, moneyless society. The USA was one of if not the first secular state. The USA was founded because they wanted to give out free land. Peasants didn't pay to live on land until enclosure began, and it really came to a head around the late 16th/early17th century in Brittan, there were something like 5 peasant rebellions against the commoditization of land, and Protestants took up the cause, and the catholics and episcopals opposed it. America was founded on proto-socialism. Socialists are actually the most american. The USA kept giving out free land until 1976, with the creation of the Bureau of Land Management, and the US middle class has been sliding backwards ever since.
'Atun-Shei Films: In Defense of Puritanism' he's a history major with an emphasis on the founding of the country-civil war. He's also got a bibliography in the description.
1
-
@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 Yeah, it does seem like we're moving backwards, especially on womens and LGBTQ+ issues. But the conservatives seem like they want it in name only, because those conservative states are flipping blue, cause bodily autonomy isn't a joke. Kansas turned blue, MI is straight blue, Wisconsin is blue. I have a feeling republicans overplayed their hand. The republican front-runner could be in prison by the time of the election. Fox is getting sued by Dominion, Proud Boys are a terrorist organization. I think the fed is responding, finally. We will likely see the republican party implode and disappear. They're torn between the financial backers, and the populist MAGA base who are actually more misinformed socialists with right wing social policies than actual fiscal conservatives, which is the main goal of the orthodox republicans.
I think we have a small number of proper fascists, and a lot of disaffected country folk who don't understand the modern logistics and governance, so they reject the entire concept of modernity and attempt to return to tradition, but those espousing the 'return to tradition' are actually just con-men hired by the oligarchs. I see most conservatives as overwhelmed by the rapid change (more change in 35 years than from the founding of Sumeria, 9,000 years ago, until the founding of the nation) which is understandable. I don't think any group is adapting well to this change. Because they can't control how they react to the changes, they try to stop the changes around them, instead. That doesn't mean that they're all reachable, or that there aren't some genuine fascists, but I think this describes a significant portion of those who appear fascist.
Indeed we do, but I'm hopeful. Republicans are tearing each other apart.
TY, I was going to say the same to you. I've been really enjoying your well-reasoned replies. I just wish this sort of conversation was in the main-stream consciousness of leftist/socialist/progressive politics. I didn't respond for a few days because I wasn't sure if you were going to write a second response before my reply, or if you wanted to wait until after.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1