There are a lot of ethical and moral problems that capitalism is responsible for. It's inherently exploitative. Doesn't matter how much financial growth is acquired via it, when it's all going to the few at the top.
Yes, indeed. So how would i be able to support a pro capitalist candidate if not purely because I think they might make an anticapitalist candidate more likely?
Then there is no alternative and collapse is inevitable. In that case, there is no reason to prolong it. Better crash down earlier than later, saves us some co2 in the atmosphere. But unlike the centrist governments, leftists were rarely in power. And part of the reason is because centrists used tactical measures so societies wouldnt have to face the underlying problems (for example, a western worker might think there was progress in the last decades. But that is only true because workers from the southern half are exploited in his place). Once that ends, because centrists are unable to govern, I do see a window in which leftists can win.
The point is: Centrists have proven that even if they are in power for decades with a comfortable majority, they are unable to face the underlying problems that end their reign right now. With leftists, at least they have concepts that haven't been tried. We didnt see a Sanders government try and fail with a wealth tax, and it wasnt because the electorate hated the idea so much.
Because you can't change anything at all without winning. You can't fix it from the outside. It takes power, influence, and money. Power to enact change. Influence to get the backing of the people. Money for everything else. You mentioned a while back in another of our exchanges that you can't just talk down to people and tell them that you know better. That they should make their political decisions based on your educated opinion. Well if that's the case, then you can kiss the idea of making normies consider adopting more radical political action goodbye, because you can't put asleep the concerns of normal people without educating them, and I've seen how Leftists educate people that aren't in the know about whatever particular pet project they're on.
But if you win on a platform that promises to not do the bare minimum to prevent collapse, then you are joining the forces you are allegedly fighting against. It means nothing, in that case, it is better not to win, because winning doesnt mean solving the problem. It means you will be the one failing instead of the other guy.
I will even go so far: It would have been better if Sanders had lost against Trump than if Biden had won. Because in that case, at least Trump's subsequent bad government would raise the question whether a wealthtax wouldnt have been nicer and another leftist could have tried his luck with headwind. The same is true for Trump. Trump losing against Biden gave him popularity as a challenger, and his second term gives him decisively more power and legitimacy than his first. Because America tried Biden as alternative, and lots of it thinks it wasn't so much better than Trump. And hopefully, in the next primary, this will also strenghten leftist candidates, because they can rightfully say that whatever centrists are trying does evidently not work.
It is just a horrible farce. And a dangerous one at that.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I will say that I am genuinely scared of Trump's Greenland statements. Because I believe he might mean nthem, even if it sounds absurd (same for Panama).
It would make a lot of sense, both for him and Musk/Thiel. Europe and South America are historic American allies but they are not under control and both have countries that take an openly negative stance on Trump. Similarly, the EU and parts of souther america (brazile for instance) take a much tougher stance on tech businesses than the US does.
So why not give them a bitchslap to make them fall in line? The point isn't that Greenland is important (even tho controlling it offers some nice benefits). The point is to do something to show that you can. If Trump waits for the European to sing their song and dance about how America cannot just decide these things, and then actually sends an aircraft carrier with the Danish instantly folding, the effect would be traumatic. It would be a reminder that, when it comes to the military, Europe has to yield. And if they do not play nice with Tech Giants from now on, there is much more in store that he could do.
It is just a horrible farce. And a dangerous one at that.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I will say that I am genuinely scared of Trump's Greenland statements. Because I believe he might mean nthem, even if it sounds absurd (same for Panama).
It would make a lot of sense, both for him and Musk/Thiel. Europe and South America are historic American allies but they are not under control and both have countries that take an openly negative stance on Trump. Similarly, the EU and parts of souther america (brazile for instance) take a much tougher stance on tech businesses than the US does.
So why not give them a bitchslap to make them fall in line? The point isn't that Greenland is important (even tho controlling it offers some nice benefits). The point is to do something to show that you can. If Trump waits for the European to sing their song and dance about how America cannot just decide these things, and then actually sends an aircraft carrier with the Danish instantly folding, the effect would be traumatic. It would be a reminder that, when it comes to the military, Europe has to yield. And if they do not play nice with Tech Giants from now on, there is much more in store that he could do.
I can't imagine the danish having to face this alone, that's what the EU is for. Unless the EU is really THAT spineless. Let alone that if the US gets away with this it would definitely embolden china for more. As far as I can tell trump taking such a step would basically destroy international relations as we know them.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
On a slightly different note, I do think facebook going for community notes over content moderators is healthy. Content moderation in social networks has only gotten more and more unmanageable as time goes on and if anything it has radicalized folk. If other social medias imitate twitter on this then elon could even end up getting a win financially with twitter within a relatively short timeframe considering that the risk associated to twitter would spread elsewhere anyways.
I can't imagine the danish having to face this alone, that's what the EU is for. Unless the EU is really THAT spineless. Let alone that if the US gets away with this it would definitely embolden china for more. As far as I can tell trump taking such a step would basically destroy international relations as we know them.
It IS that spineless. The EU is ruled by mostly business friendly bureaurocrats that want to do business in a nice way. After the Ukraine Russia war, the EU is VERY dependent on American fracking gas and it also relies on the US for many more things (intelligence, military). It can fight back with tariffs or sanctions or by throwing itself to China, but I think if Trump would send some military expedition to Greenland that installs a base there, that is a small enough infraction that the reaction would be symbolical.
Worse: What if Trump does it, the EU takes a hard stance, and actual american or european soldiers die, or at least shots are fired? Are we going to wake up in warring nations among former NATO allies?
I think this is more dangerous than it seems, as, yes, I think someone would stop trump (or deny order) if he sent a missile strike to denmark, but these events can easily escalate even if they start small.
It IS that spineless. The EU is ruled by mostly business friendly bureaurocrats that want to do business in a nice way. After the Ukraine Russia war, the EU is VERY dependent on American fracking gas and it also relies on the US for many more things (intelligence, military). It can fight back with tariffs or sanctions or by throwing itself to China, but I think if Trump would send some military expedition to Greenland that installs a base there, that is a small enough infraction that the reaction would be symbolical.
Worse: What if Trump does it, the EU takes a hard stance, and actual american or european soldiers die, or at least shots are fired? Are we going to wake up in warring nations among former NATO allies?
I think this is more dangerous than it seems, as, yes, I think someone would stop trump (or deny order) if he sent a missile strike to denmark, but these events can easily escalate even if they start small.
TBH I don't think the scenario can play out that way in spite of how spineless the EU is (The level of spinelessness is evident by the reaction to russia invading ukraine). Greenland isn't some little hole in the depths of the third world no one gives a crap about. Denmark has it's own obligations to greenland and in turn is a member of the EU and nato. This is a genuine clusterfuck. That said, trump's modus operandi isn't a mystery here. Threaten everyone with obliteration, get them to sit with him under such a threat and get a deal. but even then this still risks destroying decades worth of carefully built international relations between allies that very much need those friendly relations.
Trump isn't president yet so at least there's that.
Yes, indeed. So how would i be able to support a pro capitalist candidate if not purely because I think they might make an anticapitalist candidate more likely?
Because even if the pro-capitalist candidate doesn't lead to the greater likelihood of an anticapitalist candidate later, there are other left-leaning policies that you're giving up on by letting right-leaning politicians get into power. For example: not voting for Joe Biden because he's "pro-genocide", only to end up getting another president who's pro-genocide, but also anti-lgbtq, anti-worker, anti-homeless, and anti-immigrant.
Then there is no alternative and collapse is inevitable. In that case, there is no reason to prolong it. Better crash down earlier than later, saves us some co2 in the atmosphere. But unlike the centrist governments, leftists were rarely in power. And part of the reason is because centrists used tactical measures so societies wouldnt have to face the underlying problems (for example, a western worker might think there was progress in the last decades. But that is only true because workers from the southern half are exploited in his place). Once that ends, because centrists are unable to govern, I do see a window in which leftists can win.
Well, good luck with that. I wish I had your confidence.
The point is: Centrists have proven that even if they are in power for decades with a comfortable majority, they are unable to face the underlying problems that end their reign right now. With leftists, at least they have concepts that haven't been tried. We didnt see a Sanders government try and fail with a wealth tax, and it wasnt because the electorate hated the idea so much.
And we won't. See a Sanders-style government with a wealth tax I mean. Not just because he's done, but because the next Sanders will be treated like Sanders was. And the next one. And the next one. Until we get a Sanders that hides their power level, gets into power, and then goes full-on leftist once they have the power to. There are guardrails to prevent it sure, but they'll get a lot of things through. That's my point.
But if you win on a platform that promises to not do the bare minimum to prevent collapse, then you are joining the forces you are allegedly fighting against. It means nothing, in that case, it is better not to win, because winning doesnt mean solving the problem. It means you will be the one failing instead of the other guy.
But it does mean you have the power to solve the problem if you're so inclined. No one who's had the power recently actually has wanted to change things. To solve the problem.
I will even go so far: It would have been better if Sanders had lost against Trump than if Biden had won. Because in that case, at least Trump's subsequent bad government would raise the question whether a wealthtax wouldnt have been nicer and another leftist could have tried his luck with headwind. The same is true for Trump. Trump losing against Biden gave him popularity as a challenger, and his second term gives him decisively more power and legitimacy than his first. Because America tried Biden as alternative, and lots of it thinks it wasn't so much better than Trump. And hopefully, in the next primary, this will also strenghten leftist candidates, because they can rightfully say that whatever centrists are trying does evidently not work.
I think that depends on several factors. Like how badly the loss is, what the media claims the reason for losing is, the fear of the voters and establishment from the loss ("We went too far left. It's time to double down on right-leaning talking points.") America's ability to learn from mistakes, and our attention span.
For the second bolded part, that depends on how badly, or well, the economy is going. The recent election made Americans put so much of the rest of our rights and values aside based on vibes concerning the price of eggs.
Because Trump likes to talk shit, and he likes to say whatever because he knows his voters will eat up anything he says and support him. Trying to make sense of anything Trump says is usually pointless and a waste of time.
Because even if the pro-capitalist candidate doesn't lead to the greater likelihood of an anticapitalist candidate later, there are other left-leaning policies that you're giving up on by letting right-leaning politicians get into power. For example: not voting for Joe Biden because he's "pro-genocide", only to end up getting another president who's pro-genocide, but also anti-lgbtq, anti-worker, anti-homeless, and anti-immigrant.
That is a logic that I followed for most of my life. Not anymore. I see no value except the very inherent shortterm one in left-leaning policies if they are not coupled with a comprehensive plan to adress the issues that destroy our world. It is like standing on the titanic shortly before the iceberg hits and promising to make the music play a little longer.
If Harris had been elected, she or or successor would have failed to handle macro problems like inequality or climate change and at some point. And then you would get a far right president anyway, just like in every other nation, even the ones that are run way better than the US. And then he runs back all these decades of lukewarm policies in a term or two. So what is the point? I do not see it anymore.
We are looking at an urgent threat of social order collapsing globally. If inequality and climate change are not adressed by SUFFICIENT solutions, we are fucked. A well run moderate government can handle it a little longer, but at some point it cannot escape the question of ressource scarcity. Republicans are one step ahead: instead of promising to make the music play longer, they are already fighting for the lifeboats before the iceberg hits. Both democrats and republicans however agree that the leftists who scream that we should try to evade the iceberg are radicals.
I am willing to fight with everyone that wants to evade the Iceberg. But I won't bother for anyone who doesn't. And I see no reason to.
I do not have confidence. I am afraid. I think there will be a chance, but I do not think it is high. Yet it is the only one I can see if we want to keep a somewhat demoratic and humanist order. The only role the Bidens, the Starmers, the Scholz and the Macrons are going to play is to manage the collapse until they can't anymore. Then they will give way to the fascists either by losing or even coalition, just as Biden does now.
And we won't. See a Sanders-style government with a wealth tax I mean. Not just because he's done, but because the next Sanders will be treated like Sanders was. And the next one. And the next one. Until we get a Sanders that hides their power level, gets into power, and then goes full-on leftist once they have the power to. There are guardrails to prevent it sure, but they'll get a lot of things through. That's my point.
Is there a historic example of someone running on a platform to get in power and then doing something completely different once he got to power? That reminds me of this old dream many 15 year olds have of becoming rich and then fighting the system from within. It never happens. Because to become a billionaire, you gotta become one of them.
It is not like Biden or Harris would have had the power to get a wealth tax done. How would they? It would erode their power base, their donors, their media friends and so on. Maybe a left candidate will lose time after time, but at least if he wins running on a platform of actual change, he has a real shot of getting that through.
TBH I don't think the scenario can play out that way in spite of how spineless the EU is (The level of spinelessness is evident by the reaction to russia invading ukraine). Greenland isn't some little hole in the depths of the third world no one gives a crap about. Denmark has it's own obligations to greenland and in turn is a member of the EU and nato. This is a genuine clusterfuck. That said, trump's modus operandi isn't a mystery here. Threaten everyone with obliteration, get them to sit with him under such a threat and get a deal. but even then this still risks destroying decades worth of carefully built international relations between allies that very much need those friendly relations.
I heard an analysis today that said that Trump (and the US) are actually interested in Greenland due to climate change making Greenland very valuable for both sea routes and ressources when it taws. The other claims are distractions of that.
I think that is true. It would might make the risk seem worth it. It wouldnt just have to be military action, too. Trump could start a tariff war with the EU, then invest money into Greenlandish politics so there is some movement that "wants" Greenland to be independent and thus question the Danish legitimacy there. It is an overseas territory that is not really part of the EU and there is a serious independence movement (it is part of Greenland's constitution that it aims to be independent).
And there is nothing wrong with Greenlandish independence obviously, but you can very easily use that for a US takeover.
I heard an analysis today that said that Trump (and the US) are actually interested in Greenland due to climate change making Greenland very valuable for both sea routes and ressources when it taws. The other claims are distractions of that.
I think that is true. It would might make the risk seem worth it. It wouldnt just have to be military action, too. Trump could start a tariff war with the EU, then invest money into Greenlandish politics so there is some movement that "wants" Greenland to be independent and thus question the Danish legitimacy there. It is an overseas territory that is not really part of the EU and there is a serious independence movement (it is part of Greenland's constitution that it aims to be independent).
And there is nothing wrong with Greenlandish independence obviously, but you can very easily use that for a US takeover.
Hasn't trump been pretty overt about getting greenland's resources? His current proximity to musk and big tech is the more obvious culprit (though the potential for sea routes also adds a military component). I can't fathom trump otherwise just not being clueless about any of this.
I think the issue with greenlandish independence is math. Even tiny nations have more members in it's military than greenland has population. And if the US is eyeing greenland resources then you can bet other major nations are paying attention. I suppose we'll see what deal Trump leverages out of this.
Hasn't trump been pretty overt about getting greenland's resources? His current proximity to musk and big tech is the more obvious culprit (though the potential for sea routes also adds a military component). I can't fathom trump otherwise just not being clueless about any of this.
I think the issue with greenlandish independence is math. Even tiny nations have more members in it's military than greenland has population. And if the US is eyeing greenland resources then you can bet other major nations are paying attention. I suppose we'll see what deal Trump leverages out of this.
You know what's so infuriating about this? The fact that these fucks can dismiss concerns about climate change while taking actions not to mitigate climate change, but to reduce loss of money and resources DUE to climate change.
Even worse, they'd claim that there's no need to switch to other forms of energy because we have so much of it to remain self-sufficient. So why the FUCK are we trying to sac villages like god damn Vikings to steal their resources if we are chock-full of enough resources to stay self-sufficient?
Fuck these people. And fuck the people that are gonna try to find a way to blame this on Democrats instead of flat-out saying "Yeah, Republicans are pretty bad, huh?"
You know what's so infuriating about this? The fact that these fucks can dismiss concerns about climate change while taking actions not to mitigate climate change, but to reduce loss of money and resources DUE to climate change.
Even worse, they'd claim that there's no need to switch to other forms of energy because we have so much of it to remain self-sufficient. So why the FUCK are we trying to sac villages like god damn Vikings to steal their resources if we are chock-full of enough resources to stay self-sufficient?
Fuck these people. And fuck the people that are gonna try to find a way to blame this on Democrats instead of flat-out saying "Yeah, Republicans are pretty bad, huh?"
I mean, that bit is a given considering this is the "climate change is a hoax" crowd. As far as I can tell this is more about the rare minerals which US does not have than the energy it can potentially be self sufficient with. I take issue with trump's method of course but in the grand scheme of things if US can lessen its dependence on russia and china for these materials then it should. But with sane methods like diplomacy, trade agreements...
For some context of what china has been doing over the past 20 years while the US has ineffectively sat on it's lazy ass:
China pretty much went to peru and built a massive port. And with the explicit intention of securing it's demand from peru made stuff along with of course securing an entry place for it's own products. china is leveraging the entirety of it's might to secure investments, trade and influence around the world. China has been doing this at every level everywhere. Private investors? You got the chinese government getting you one. Your country has a critical infrastructure project? China has got you. Meanwhile the US is too busy pretending bidden shouldn't have been 25th three years ago. There's danger to what trump is doing, and it's wrong even, but fuck it's better than literally nothing at least.
In my opinion, what the US should do is join up with the BRIC countries, the EU and key exporting countries of resources and try to find an order in which the world can movie forward, distributing everything fairly without just robbing the exporting countries dry or even forcing them into some imperialist export necessity. Framing China as an enemy for doing the same the US is doing seems misguided.
In my opinion, what the US should do is join up with the BRIC countries, the EU and key exporting countries of resources and try to find an order in which the world can movie forward, distributing everything fairly without just robbing the exporting countries dry or even forcing them into some imperialist export necessity. Framing China as an enemy for doing the same the US is doing seems misguided.
That sounds nice but do you think any amount of US good will could get better relations with china on this front? China's economy doesn't have the best prospects and it's in desperate need to take measures to keep feeding it's massive population while dealing with the aftermath of its one child policy. India's policy is pretty much "we are our own side, fuck off". Russia pretty much declared war on the western world over a ridiculous russian world delusion. At least china and russia have wet dreams on dethroning the US dollar. Brasil depends on who is president so it's not THAT relevant.
In the end these are competing powers. EU and US can chose to not play the game but that doesn't mean there's no game, it just means the other side wins.
That sounds nice but do you think any amount of US good will could get better relations with china on this front? China's economy doesn't have the best prospects and it's in desperate need to take measures to keep feeding it's massive population while dealing with the aftermath of its one child policy. India's policy is pretty much "we are our own side, fuck off". Russia pretty much declared war on the western world over a ridiculous russian world delusion. At least china and russia have wet dreams on dethroning the US dollar. Brasil depends on who is president so it's not THAT relevant.
In the end these are competing powers. EU and US can chose to not play the game but that doesn't mean there's no game, it just means the other side wins.
Yes, I think that. Because China and all countries follow the same logic here, justifying their expansionism by the expansionism of their rivals. The US is not a gentle player and it never was. When you say India is on their own side, then that is also true for you guys. You just have way better PR.
The US can decide to pursue something akin to an economic demilitarization. The whole EU started by the idea that France and Germany get involved into each others' coal and steel business, because it is basically impossible to prepare a war against each other with that kind of involvement. Deciding among multilateral players to divide the ressources in a way that does not give anyone a too big advantage would be something most nations would benefit from (exactly because they do not have to pursue their economic interests as radically anymore). I do not think one can blame China for a system that the US has pursued far longer and far more radically (with wars and regime changes) than them. If anything, before blaming other partiers, the US should make an honest push for that.
I also question what the alternative is. As you say, China is desperate. If you take all the ressources they need, what option is there except war?
Bernie's done. And I don't think AOC ever plans on getting serious about a presidential run. If so, it'll be a few elections away. I dunno, I've never viewed Bernie's biggest contribution to the discourse being him being against money in politics. I know he was very stalwart in that messaging but it always seemed to me what moved the people was his willingness to attack Democrats and Republicans, dogged defense of the working class, further left-leaning positions about healthcare and stuff, and constant beating of the "the top 1-percent are fucking everything up" drum (which I guess would include money in politics...)
I wasn't talking about another Bernie run, I said he's a figurehead. AOC is pretty much a careerist politician at this point, she's not a strong advocate for these causes anymore IMO.
I'm not sure what the perception is from the average supporter or voter, but the messaging Sanders has always used is about the influence of money in politics. It's the root cause of almost anything needing reform. If you watch any interview with Sanders he's mentioned the damage the Citizens United decision has done. Of course there's other topics, but like you said it almost always comes back to moneyed interests.
Well outside of the novelty of this election, I think if it was a failing strategy, it wouldn't have worked for the other team. There are other things that contributed to Kamala losing but having too much money isn't one of them.
Does the "other team" have the same goals as non right-wingers have? Because I would say they obviously don't. So I'm not sure why anyone would say the same exact strategy is a winning one just because they do it.
"Trump must surely know all about Obama right...?"
I love the absolute delusion these people live in
Just to make sure I looked at this account and when they weren't talking about Michele Obama's penis they were blaming the LA fires on space lasers. Of course.
Yes, I think that. Because China and all countries follow the same logic here, justifying their expansionism by the expansionism of their rivals. The US is not a gentle player and it never was. When you say India is on their own side, then that is also true for you guys. You just have way better PR.
The US can decide to pursue something akin to an economic demilitarization. The whole EU started by the idea that France and Germany get involved into each others' coal and steel business, because it is basically impossible to prepare a war against each other with that kind of involvement. Deciding among multilateral players to divide the ressources in a way that does not give anyone a too big advantage would be something most nations would benefit from (exactly because they do not have to pursue their economic interests as radically anymore). I do not think one can blame China for a system that the US has pursued far longer and far more radically (with wars and regime changes) than them. If anything, before blaming other partiers, the US should make an honest push for that.
I also question what the alternative is. As you say, China is desperate. If you take all the ressources they need, what option is there except war?
I am not from the US, english isn't even my first language. My take here is simply that we are better better of with the US being the dominant power than with any of the alternatives, by a lot. I'd take the EU over the US if it was an option but considering how things have played out in the past 10 years it's clear russian propaganga has won and there's some brainworm that makes way too many EU folk their individual countries have a chance of mattering against china or india.
I mean, sure, cooperation would be the best case scenario but that's not the world we live in. Just look at the way china, india or russia treat their own citizens... cooperation as you suggest implies treating folk in other countries with the same decency as you'd treat your own which is a terrible thing when this means china treating you like a chinese person.
I am not from the US, english isn't even my first language. My take here is simply that we are better better of with the US being the dominant power than with any of the alternatives, by a lot. I'd take the EU over the US if it was an option but considering how things have played out in the past 10 years it's clear russian propaganga has won and there's some brainworm that makes way too many EU folk their individual countries have a chance of mattering against china or india.
I mean, sure, cooperation would be the best case scenario but that's not the world we live in. Just look at the way china, india or russia treat their own citizens... cooperation as you suggest implies treating folk in other countries with the same decency as you'd treat your own which is a terrible thing when this means china treating you like a chinese person.
I do not see any "halfway non-worldwar case" scenario if there is no cooperation in a world with dwindling ressources and a bunch of imperialist powers. I also do not buy the story of every non-west-aligned country being impossible to reason with. As I said, it wasnt china who led abroad wars and regime changes for its own gains. As far as foreign policy goes, China has hostilities with its neighbours, but is far more peaceful than the US.
It is true China is a dictatorship and you can easily get into a psychiatric institution if you criticise the party, but I would also not buy that China or India are so much crueler to its citizens on the big scale. I mean, how decently does the US treat its own when you look at how the prison population is treated or how the police handles its citizens? From a European perspective, I could make the same argument about the US being impossible to reason with on that ground. Not even talking about what the US did to people abroad.
All of the 3 countries enable fairly normal lives with a rule of law to its standard citizens, none of them are north korea or afghanistan. You will find horrible stories from all of them, to varying degrees but still.
There's been an update to our forum rules to broaden crediting/sourcing to all series news/announcement, etc. Please read HERE
Oscars Contest 2023 is LIVE! Click HERE for a chance to win your Oscar!
It's back! MH presents a celebration of manga/anime culture; Mangahelpers Awards 2022 is NOW LIVE!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
