Eldritch

Eldritch , 1 day ago

Was this the convention with the hot mic racist dick measuring discussion? I can only assume he showed them.

Eldritch , 1 day ago

This is the way. I did it in 2020 for Biden as he was my 2nd least favorite in the primary. I've been pleasantly surprised with significant labor wins, and debt forgiveness. All procured by his administration. There are definitely some negative issues larger than him and his administration. Sitting this out and risking fascists getting power will only end worse.

Eldritch , 1 day ago

Talk to Congress. Biden as our top diplomat has been more diplomatic than Bibi the butcher deserves. The speaker of the house. The group responsible for passing and funding foreign aid. Has already said he will be campaigning against and lying about Biden based on the limited push back he's given to Israel. Biden can't stop the aid. We can argue as a leader he should be lending his voice and leadership to stopping it. But if you want it stopped. Adress Mike Johnson and the Zionist in Congress. And maybe not help them get even more power.

Eldritch , 1 day ago

Most often I've seen instances use as super communities. Largely revolving around a bigger topic. KDE runs their own with their own subcommunities for instance. They are far from the only ones. Just the one I use the most and a came to mind first. Having your own instance slap server allows you far more control over your communities then just hosting on someone else's server. But from an end user perspective very largely transparent. not even being noticeable oftentimes.

Eldritch , 1 day ago

It's a well-defined term. But it's one not really discussed much or talked about in america. And largely used in propaganda when it is used. Which is only aided by people not understanding and knowing the definition.

Liberal is basically a shortening of economic liberal. Think founding fathers, Adam smith, invisible hand circle jerk off the economy. Free markets yada yada yada. Basically that is what liberal means in the rest of the world. And still means in the United States even though it's misused heavily. You might also comment to yourself that that sounds an awful lot like people who call themselves libertarian. Which is because they are not libertarian they are economic liberals. They're just masquerading.

In the early 20th century, the glaring problems with economic liberalism we're becoming impossible to ignore. Robber barons exploiting labor en mass and running roughshod over government. It was pretty blatantly apparent to most people what economic liberalism always was. It wasn't about free markets for everyone. You can ask Black Wall Street about that. And it wasn't about creating free societies for everyone. You can ask Black Wall Street about that. It was clear that they needed to abandon the hands off social policy of economic liberalism and apply pressure socially to achieve better outcomes. Which the market abhorred. And post world war II the violent oppressive Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist revolutions combined with fascistic rhetoric convinced them that capitalism was still the only answer. But hands on capitalism.

Enter neoliberals. Republicans and Democrats both are neo-liberals. Their current stances decided by who passed the civil rights act. Democrats solidified themselves as the party of limited social assistance. Republicans taking the opposite stance socially. No longer just socially "neutral" in pursuit of free markets and non wasps to exploit. They became punitive and actively socially oppressive.

And no Democrats are in no way socialist. Work requirements are antisocialist. Little poison pills that Democrats and Republicans both have worked into every single social assistance program ever implemented in the United States. As a mechanism to keep control and power over labor. Leaving them distinctly vulnerable and easily exploitable as father for the factories and businesses of wealthy capitalists. If an unemployed person had social protections and guarantees. Capitalists have no leverage over them. They could be discerning about what jobs they worked and what jobs they didn't. Without having the fear of starvation and death hung over them. And that doesn't work for capitalists.

Eldritch , 1 day ago

We even have a holiday celebrating the natives saving their Pilgrim asses from starvation. Natives whom they think by slaughtering and running them off their land. Really brings a tear to your eye. America is a lot more nuts than even Americans realize.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. If Joseph Dejacqe were still alive. So called right wing libertarians would be the ones he was railing against.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

It's just a smokescreen for selfish/embarrassed economic liberals. This was the man that coined and defined Libertarianism. Right wingers need not apply. The modern "libertarian" party is a necrophilic oxymoron.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Nah, Grover is a nobody and not all that closely tied to the Liberals masquerading as libertarians. He was plenty up Republican asses as well. Milton Friedman and Murray rothbard share most of the blame. Along with the Koch brothers.

Eldritch , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

He's just an acolyte of Milton Friedman and Murray rothbard. Not all that special himself. But yes all the evolved "libertarians" evolved backwards.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

And that's always a good thing. I just wish they'd realize that before their mortality was before them and they had no chance to make amends. Lifetimes of damage are hard to un do.

Eldritch , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

You think that's bad? Heh Libertarianism is a leftist ideology. Not at all liberal. They HATE us.

Heh and all the down votes without rebuttal prove it. They know better. They still hate to admit it. But they know better.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

That said, leftism is centralized economics.

<john cena> Are you sure about that? </john cena>

You should tell that to the Democratic Socialists, or the Social Democrats, or Marxists, or actual Libertarians, or anarchists, or communists. Literally I think the only group on the left. That is significantly centrally organized are Marxist Leninist. Every group on the right however depends on a central authority to make their economy fesable.

Either this is projection, or you don't know what left is. Which if you are a fellow American is absolutely understandable. They did a lot to dumb us down and make us afraid to look to any groups that weren't capitalist or fascist. To help us meet our needs. That red scare shit is still prevalent to this day. Though the Marxist Leninist did hand them the talking point on a platter post world war II. The rest of the left just got smeared with it unduly.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Such a mishmash of words that have no business together anarchic commune state?! What the hell even is that. That's not at all what anarchists Etc advocate for. Anarchists further are not passivists. And anarchist can absolutely organize for their self-defense. There's nothing ideologically stating they can't. Though it is ideologically opposed to becoming a state in the terms of nation states.

Do you know what anarchism is beyond angsty teens and pejorative colloquialisms of Chaos?

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Yes and Humanity has done it for thousands of years without a large centralized National body. Anarchism is not without an ability to regulate. What do you think anarchism is?

Eldritch , 2 days ago

The political Compass is a joke. It's more accurate than just left or right. But libertarian isn't a state that spans from left to right at the bottom. Libertarianism as it was designed is strictly a left ideology. Oriented about social Freedom Above All Else. Economic liberalism. Is an ideology predicated on complete economic freedom. Economic Liberals are not libertarians. Never have been. Never will be. They have diametrically opposed ideologies.

The problem with economic liberalism is that it puts the cart before the horse. You cannot have a free economy without a free society. Economic liberalism doesn't care about Society in general. Just the free market. And they figure that magically a free Society will somehow follow. It never has but that's the magical thinking involved.

Eldritch , 2 days ago (edited 2 days ago)

Please explain. None of you can explain how that is. You just pretend it is. You just redefined things to mean whatever you want ignoring their original meaning. I can point to actual facts and evidence. I can point to history. All you can do is claim something and not back it up. Do you honestly think Joseph Dejacque would be accepting or abide a group of delusioned liberal nuggets? Do you even know who he is?

For those actually curious. Joseph Dejacque is the man that coined the term Libertarianism and defined it. He fought against imperialists, mercantilist, and capitalist. He was literally active in the French Revolution in france. In the early 1800s. Fervently pro labor etc. For 100 years there were no "right wing" libertarians. But post red scare and the 1950s. A bunch of privileged economic liberals decided to redefine the ideology and it's meaning from the ground up. To be the opposite of what it's creator intended. And the easiest way to prove this is to ask a right-wing liberal about Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand of the market. They literally fetishize him. The man and his ideology. Economic liberalism

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Everything is feasible in smaller populations. That's why government should generally be smaller and more granular. It is also why businesses should be smaller still.

Just because insecure bullies make something impractical doesn't mean it's wrong. Nor does it mean that they are right.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Golly! Look at that. The Liberals were so confident that they were right. I mean if I'm so ridiculously wrong shouldn't it be easy to prove me wrong? Kind of by definition even? Makes you wonder why they aren't trying. I'm sure they will continue to pyrrhicly down vote regardless.

Eldritch , 2 days ago

That's a sad response. But I know it's the best you had liberal.😄

Eldritch , 2 days ago

Yes we are well aware. Up Is Down black is white love is hate war is peace freedom is slavery.

No, definitions don't generally change. Especially not to mean the opposite of how they we're initially defined.

You're confusing a party for an ideology. There is no "Republican" ideology. Especially since Trump took over. Ideologically, since at least the 1930s Republicans were pretty solidly fascist. At least in private. They're just more open about it today.

But hey, we can still compare our non aggression principles. This is mine.

1000001797

It's a French classic!

Eldritch , 1 day ago

True. I still hold out hope for them. I know it's possible for people to overcome. Even if it is hard.

Eldritch , 3 days ago

People read and lurk. It's not a new phenomena. If they are bots, it would have to be the saddest smallest swarm ever.

Eldritch , 3 days ago

100% this. Reddit wasn't always what a lot of people know it as. Lemmy has extremely early Reddit vibes. And that is a good thing. We just need to keep growing and diversifying.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

Agreed. I don't know anyone who has been polled. And it still seems much of it is through land lines. My 90 year old grandmother doesn't have a land line any more. Though that's largely because of my parents who also don't have a land line. Who are these people with landlines and why are they so important.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

That's not even mentioning Biden's NLRB ruling. Basically the largest labor victory in the last 100 years. Combined with the Biden Administration FTC ruling squashing non-compete agreements. Which is the second biggest win for labor in the last 100 years. Or the billions in student debt his administration has forgiven.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

Heh, told ya we often agree. Even though I'm not a fan of Democrats or biden. It's hard to say his administration hasn't been consequential in many good ways. There was only one Democrat I remember liking less than Biden in 20. And that was culty Gabbard. I've honesty been surprised. No small d democratic government can be perfect. Outside of some Optical missteps surrounding current events in Israel. His administration has been surprisingly decent.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

The bank bailout started before Obama was elected or even took office. I absolutely agree that he shouldn't have just continued the policy. And that he should have pushed more to get relief to the actual people hurting it and not just the banks. But again it comes down to the fact that the president is largely a diplomatic figurehead. Without a lot of power outside of War etc for the executive branch in general. When it comes to things like that he had to do what he could as fast as he could with the Congress he had. He absolutely should have at least vocally pushed for it though.

This I agree with though. Never in my lifetime have we had multiple consecutive Democratic presidencies. Excluding things like two-term presidents. I'm talking like Reagan bush Etc. For the record it's been nixon/ Ford, Carter for 4 years, Reagan for eight and Bush for another four, Clinton 48, Bush for eight, Obama for eight, Trump for four, and now Biden for four. Every 4 to 8 years we tend to flip fascist and people wonder why no progress is being made. Because we're having to fix the damage the fascist did before we can even try to improve things and it's a hole that just keeps getting deeper and deeper and deeper every 8 years.

The worst part of it, so many people are solely focused on presidential elections. Which don't get me wrong the presidency is absolutely nice to have. If you had a majority Democratic House and Senate there is still a major amount a president Trump could block. But we struggle so hard to even have the presidency let alone solid control of the house or Senate for any length of time. And all of it arises from people allowing perfection to be the enemy of achievable.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

Yep. The president is merely our top diplomat. Yes he runs the executive branch and has some power over it. People are so uneducated attributing so much more to him than he ever had power to really influence or control. It's supremely easy for the armchair analysts to squeal about genocide Joe. Without understanding the near Century long effort and ties with Israel involved. That he cannot just pull out the rug from that on his own. And without consequence. That's a job for Congress.

And yes political education is abysmal in the United States especially. With lots of propaganda and lies being taught as facts. It's the reason we're all told not to discuss politics and why we continue to keep it taboo. Because so many people don't understand, rather relying on emotion. It makes it near impossible to have an actual productive discussion. By design.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

100%. If any of us can think quickly of things that publicly traded companies regularly do that we hate. Investing in the stock market and publicly traded companies is unethical. Because the nature of being publicly traded inevitably means that they will all do those sort of behaviors. Whether it's companies ignoring IP and not allowing others any way of developing or continuing it. No matter how much they promise to pay said company Etc. Or gobbling up and laying off teams of Developers just to eat more of their IP. I'm sure plenty of us can think of plenty of things that publicly traded companies do that we absolutely hate. But every one of them is obligated to behave that way.

And on the youtuber recommendations you're spot on. Geerling lacks a little charisma. But as a fellow resident of the state of misery we gotta stick together. And I definitely enjoy his content. I still watch ltt. But I don't blame anyone who doesn't. The thing that differentiates all the ones you mentioned from ltt however, is the size. Ltt blew up, Linus and his wife hadn't been able too manage it properly for some time. Jay, tech Jesus etc have teams working for them. But they are so much smaller and more focused than ltt. Hell even MKB is. Their hiring of a proper CEO I think will help in the long term. Though it might not win back those they lost.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

Capitalists industrialized Marxist Leninist also industrialized. At least compare something more apples to apples.

Life expectancy going up is always a good thing however. Now if only the Marxist leninist governments worked on their tolerance of speech. And the capitalist governments stop looking to the Marxist leninist governments for inspiration on how to crack down on speech.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

That's not a valid comparison. First there is the troublesome issue of sample size. Second there's the issue of whats actually qualifies as communism or capitalism.

There has NEVER been a communist country. So that right there is a huge problem with any claims. Marxist Leninism is not, and never will be communism. Most frequently devolving into outright fascism(modern Russia) or oppressive dictatorial regimes, state capitalist (China) or otherwise (North Korea). As well, a country being west aligned, doesn't make it capitalist.

This isn't a defense of capitalism. Far from. Ideologically I trend libertarian(true libertarian the Déjacque kind) /anarco communist. So I criticize both heavily when they're pulling their bullshit.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

That may be true. But the governments claiming to be a sub sect of the ideology have surpassed the capitalist in every way. Great firewall of China etc.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

Liberals pretend they are right wing libertarians. ML pretend to be communist. That doesn't make it true. But it's very humorous that you're trying to use US government misinformation and propaganda to justify it.

Nationalization of industry isn't a core ideology of communism. Having a nation or even a state isn't required for that matter.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

This, this is the height of something. That's for sure. An ML trying to gaslight a communist about what a communist nation is. Using US Government misinformation/propaganda.

ML are not communist. Marxist leninism was designed and intended as a stopgap. To industrialize Russia and bring it to a point where then magically through some mechanism they never managed to figure out. It would switch over to a communist structure.

Just because some authoritarian or dictatorial structure nationalizes all major industry in a country. Does not make it communist. Just because something has been nationalized does not mean it belongs to the people.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

Stuff means things. We don't get to redefine it as we go.

But let me put this forward..

common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.

This is a general characterization of communism. How can a "state" be stateless? Is this Schrodinger's communism?

The problem with Marxist leninism, and why it will never achieve communism. Is because they simply expected the state to wither away. Because as any serious students of History knows. No one has ever fought wars. Everyone always just gives up power without a fight. When you centralize power. The people who have it are always eager to give it up. <Oprah> you get power! And you get power! Everybody gets power!! <Oprah />

The reason Marxist leninist States always develop into capitalist fascism or other brutal authoritarian concepts. Is because of the centralization of power. Those with the power covet and protect it. They will have to be overthrown themselves before and there will ever be a possibility of communism.

The reason ml will never defeat capitalism. It's because they are a lateral move compared to capitalism. Capitalists don't stand to benefit from it. They would lose power. The People Under The capitalist understand that they would not be any freer. In fact they would lose freedom. There's no visible benefit.

The truth is capitalists will likely tear themselves apart before long. Things are already highly toxic. And with increasing automation soon will become untenable. China is starting to decay badly already as well. ML speed run that part. We'll see if the man who made himself president for life then moved into the Forbidden City does the right thing. Or does what anyone in that situation would do. Leave the power to someone in his family. Or a loyal sycophant.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

As more of a maoist i would not say China today is socialist with those billionaires owning stakes in those chinese companies and influencing the state to have this high income inequality there now and not offering everybody a job as they used to under mao etc.

I agree. I literally called them out to you as degenerating into state capitalism. All authoritarian governmental structures tend to degenerate along similar lines. With all gains pooling at the top never reaching the people that created them. I will acknowledge that I believe that Lenin and Mao had good intention. The problem is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They failed to understand and account for very basic behaviors of human nature. For all the things that capitalism gets wrong at least they not only understand it but have actually embraced it. Giving up all pretense. That's the real danger of ml governments as opposed to capitalists. Capitalists are raw and naked about their ambition. Which makes it a little easier to recognize their deficiencies and occasionally counteract them. Whereas ml lie to the face of their people that everything they do is in the name of the people.

Unemployment as we measure is a poor measure of anything. And not something to cite. Calling enequality similar to the Gilded Age as not untenable is extremely ignorant. It's after all was one of the driving factors behind The surge of socialism in the United States. Right now the truth is many people are over-employed and still not making enough to afford the basics our societies should be providing. China like all of them is dangling untenably over a precipice. There are plenty in rural areas that the central government has done very little for overall. And a large number of young people growing disillusioned and dissatisfied with the unanswerable government they are being saddled with. All it's going to take is another unplanned hiccup or two. Another couple pandemics. And shit will likely hit the fan all over.

Eldritch , 4 days ago

Just to remind you. Left libertarian/anarco communist here. If I defined everything as America and those in its influence define it you would be correct. But America is at best a flawed democracy and at worst something far far worse. Our Behavior internationally has been often imperialist and brutal definitely not democratic.

Post World War II our knee jerk crackdowns on anything much to the left of fascism screams that much. And I think in the long term actually did more to hurt everyone including the United states. It gave so many people much more fuel than they would have had. Simply persisting out of spite to the United states. A lot of the ML countries would have had the wheels fall off sooner if they hadn't been isolated. Even despite Mao ham-fistedly trying his hardest to destroy everything with his incompetence from the start

Eldritch , 7 days ago

Then why is no one calling out the congress responsible for it? Biden didn't pass or fund this. He isn't pushing back against it hard enough. But he's not the one that passed it. Or threatened to campaign against him when he just delayed delivery. I don't see anyone calling out mike Johnson.

Eldritch , 7 days ago

I agree. Basically no one is doing that. But I agree.

Eldritch , 7 days ago

Never implied he wasn't. Only implied that the obsessive focus on him is suspicious and short-sighted if someone actually wanted it to improve things in gaza. He is a small part of the equation and the problem. Mike Johnson has already said that he will do everything it takes to continue the genocide in Gaza. That he and his House of Representatives is aiding in supplying directly.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

I never said he didn't. I just said you all seem more focused at being mad at him than actually stopping it.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

It's not a critique of the child. It IS a critique of the system. No one is saying what he did was bad, or that he shouldn't have done it. They're saying HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. It's like the heartwarming stories of Americans funding their medical care through go-fund-me. It's horrifying to any sensible person.

Anarchist and Libertarians can care for each other. If there ever was a more clearer justification for actual taxes and government. It's where it's things that would increase access to freedom. Like not having to beg to survive, come into the conversation.

Eldritch , 6 days ago

Perhaps. But neither party has ever primary and incumbent.

Eldritch , 8 days ago

How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.

Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that's not a freedom. That's a privilege and should not be protected.

Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it's definition of private property can't also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.

If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person's second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?

Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.

In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I'm not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn't. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren't Hayek's or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.

Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn't libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.

So if were gonna debate let's debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?

Eldritch , 7 days ago

What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn't trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?

I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren't nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler's government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.

Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they're doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.

Eldritch , 7 days ago

What question did I dodge? I answered that. Wait. You think there are left wing fascists? I mean it would fit with redefining left-wing Libertarians to be right wing I suppose. So I shouldn't be shocked. Even though fascism is defined and accepted as being a right wing ideology.

Eldritch , 7 days ago

So first things first. Nolan was a liberal, despite calling himself libertarian. Liberal == economic freedom, libertarian == social freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Second I was not aware that the Nazis were liberal and supported economic freedom. Honestly everything I've seen historically screamed the opposite. You know, the whole if you aren't with us we kill you. Not a socially or economically "liberal" vibe. But I'd be interested to see what your justification for the claim is.

Why would you not weight social Freedom over economic freedom? Society is the basis of the economy. Who in their right mind would prioritize economic freedom over social freedom? Who would want prioritize being the wealthiest inmate in a concentration camp for instance. over being free but having wealth similar to everyone else?

Let's put this in better perspective. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism provided zero new economic freedom. There were immensely wealthy non royals that owned trading companies. But they were socially segregated from the royals and could never become them outside of marriage which was also segregated. Capitalism offered new social freedom, now us low born could become the equivalent of the royals based largely on dumb luck and chance. The change was strictly about social freedom. As surpurfluous and damaging as that particular freedom was.

Finally there is no meaningful economic freedom without social freedom. Without social Freedom you will be permanently segregated from economic success. Black people and minorities for example in the United States technically have access to economic freedom. And yet it is always such a noteworthy thing anytime one of them actually becomes economically successful. Because they generally do not have the social freedom.