• 28 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Mar 04, 2022

help-circle
rss

I am reminded of a saying that seems diametrically opposed to that. That ‘a free society is one that needs no laws’ as in a place where people have what they need and are expected to be nice to the point that there’s no reason to write out punishments for murder. I think it comes from indigenous socialism so I can see why they’d hate each other.


Isn’t the point of social contract that humans naturally make agreements about social norms and that forms the basis for the state, so state society was kind of inevitable because of how pre-state society worked? (I’ve not read Hobbes, nor agree with his theory, Im just pretty sure social contract exists without a state)



I’m aware of the actual National Bolshevik party in Russia, it’s just that if someone would be considered a Nazbol without belonging to the actual party it might be what MLG described.


Libertarianism and neoconservatism are basically just neoliberalism too. (Socdem is different, but there is no real movement toward such, so it doesn’t matter who claims it). Libertarianism is just neoliberalism before the Kochs realized they could have their ideology right in the mainstream instead of some third party. neoconservativism is basically neoliberalism ‘s foreign policy, but mostly when republicans do it. (Bush was called a neocon for invading Iraq and so on while Obama didn’t get such a label even though he continued those policies).


MLG is using it how I’d usually use it, but you’re technically right that NazBol just means socialist economic planning, but with opposition to proletarian internationalism.



undefined

spoiler...
fedilink



Reactionaries: “California is literally communist!” AES: “we have 99.99% literacy” California: “we only have 76.9% literacy”







On your first point, why are the weazlys’ poor? They’ve got multiple people working similar jobs in the ministry. Why don’t they just build a new, larger house? With all that magic and land it should be easy. Maybe the mode of production is mercantilism or something? As, the only businesses or basically small. Businesses.


As we are on the subject, I would like to go on a Harry Potter rant. My little brother is having the Harry Potter series read to him, so something I keep noticing is the population. Rowling keeps mentioning that the wizard population is relatively small. She says the pureblood families going extinct and the muggle population is much larger than that of wizards, but how could this be? Wizards seem to reproduce at a similar rate to humans, and they have the advantage of muggle families often bearing magic children. Does this mean they die at a faster rate? It couldn’t be. Many wizards are noted to live far beyond 100. Humans can kill by poisoning, machine gun, bombing, Illness or many other things. Wizards on the other hand can stop poisoning very easily, don’t have either high tech weapons (but could protect from them easily), and have many magical cures for illness not barred by copyright or hospital bills. The way they do kill is poisoning, which is less likely to kill, by knife, which is easily reversed, or by a spell which is far less efficient than a human projectile. How is it then, that the biggest wizard school has only 28 athletes? My other problem is: aren’t wizards supposed to have some great culture? They live like it’s the Middle Ages, without accepting much modern tech. Yet, they are shallow enough to adopt the human Christian holiday of Christmas, and they make terrible parodies of contemporary Christmas songs, (Sirius sings “merry hippogryphs” or something of the sort). That concludes my Harry Potter problems that I haven’t seen someone like Shaun cover.



Not by American standards. I guess genuinely supporting democrats or republicans could count. By US standards, I guess my grandma mostly supports republicans, but is anti-Trump, and my great uncle(?) thinks people who have terrible student loans deserve it. Edit: I just remembered my grandma has been to Israel and doesn’t oppose their government.



Theoretically this (mostly) sounds fine. If there were a revolution before then and therefore people don’t “own” anything (no private property), they instead collectively own the means of production and borrow public things when they need them. However, knowing the WEF, it’s clear they are trying to trick us into thinking our “benevolent” bourgeois overlords will just allow us to have nice stuff once technology has progressed enough. Whereas in real life, what would happen is the capitalist class would genocide everyone who isn’t necessary to provide for their luxurious life.





Title

I feel like we need a philosophy memes community, I don’t know how many people would be interested, though…

fedilink


A while ago I was arguing with a neo-liberal (irl), and this is basically what they said, when I was saying capitalism is stopping more apartments from being built, along with other ways it contributes to homelessness.


Thanks, Wikipedia. Apparently, Barabbas was a revolutionary, and not a serial killer like I was told.


I would not at all be surprised If there was some dude in Rome who preached for poor people and against imperialism, who ended up on a cross and as the basis for a religion, and an important figure in others.



Or maybe, it’s because they’ll get guillotined before they get the chance to become one




Should we make a community for fixing bad memes like antifastonetoss?..

fedilink

Am I the only one that thinks he looks like Epstein?


🇮🇪🤝🟩🤝🇵🇸