who were they doing it for, an-crap?
who were they doing it for, an-crap?
imagine a society not dependent on individual charity (with wealth expropriated from the working class) for improving material wellbeing.
does a ‘nice’ king justify monarchy?
no. power centralized in the beaurocratic state apparatus is also oppressive. electoral politics are a sham, and democracy is impotent when the capital owning class can simply buy influence.
if 9 people vote to kill the 10th, is that just?
itt: those in the priveledged position to rely on the state for defense of self and community would rob others of the ability to enforce their bodily autonomy and community defense.
‘only the [fascist] cops should be armed’ brain worms,
enforcing the capital owning class’ monopoly of violence (against ourselves),
a negative peace at the expense of justice.
you know-- bootlickers.
your position presupposes that capitalism can serve to improve our collective wellbeing, when it is fundamentally an oppressive heirarchy enforced through violence.
news flash: if you do not own capital, capitalism’s essential function is not to improve your material condition, but that of the capital owning class.
edit: civility
argument through analogy is a logical fallacy, I’m not going to engage that.
you’ve yet to convince me that further entrenching capitalism (which requires scarcity to the extent that it will create it where there need be none, and demands endless quarterly growth within a limited system) is a solution to the environmental destruction to which it contributes.
it seems to me as though you would like to eat your cake and have it too.
private ownership of capital is a race to the bottom, leading inevitably to unsustainable extraction of natural resources. The latter won’t be halted or reversed without abolishing the former.
we need power to be distributed horizontally, not continue to be concentrated in fewer and fewer actors.
the non profit industrial complex serves to launder the reputations of the ownership class without meaningfully addressing oppressive systems or threatening the status quo.
it’s actually from Hungary, but I’m not going to defend auth apologists lol
reactionary recuperation of revolutionary aesthetic-- shallow, reductive simulacrum of class analysis, stripped of systemic critique, intersectionality, and radical solidarity.
conservative pandering. lame af.
this is news?
we don’t need to acknowledge or address the efforts of those acting in bad-faith to delegitmize egalitarian leftist philosophy.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Jean-Paul Sartre”
but have you considered putting the right smart guy in charge?
lhd suggests otherwise, yank.
tongue-ass national forest😻
common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.
cringe and/or lame