Connect with your neighbours. Offer to help with anything you're good at. Share tools with them.
Hyper individualism is capitalism's best friend. You can't borrow a chainsaw from someone you don't know. You have to buy zucchini from the store because you don't know anyone with a garden. You have to pay a plumber for a simple leak instead of someone you know being able to help. And so on.
The powers that be will shit themselves if we all start cooperating instead of fighting. Why do you think they stoke the anti-trans flames so hard? Why make up that they're eating the dogs and eating the cats?
They don't want us getting along. That's bad for business. You can do your part to fuck them up simply by remembering how to be a real human. Not a consumer.
I started a jalapeño pepper plant two years ago that's been popping out peppers like crazy. I hate peppers, so I give them to anyone who wants them around town.
I do not share tools though, they never seem to come back. If you need a tool or something I have, as long as you don't mind a furry foul mouthed Canadian I'll gladly come help though and bring them along.
Amongst each other, the billionaires are the biggest socialists of all. They are simply greedy and do not want to share their ill-gotten gains. "C'mon poors! Fight each other for my pleasure and profit!".
Old but still relavent.“But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed.
It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.
Because the owners, the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.
Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.
They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want:
They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests.
Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that!
You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club.
By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you.
They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.
It’s called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it.
George Carlin
And remember that they got rid of your third spaces so you couldn't discuss any of it (and made common affordable gathering options like concerts and sporting events out of reach for the same reason). Threw you into algorithms so you felt like you were only preaching to the choir or conversely that nobody held your same opinions/aspirations for something more - either way a formula for you to get exhausted and give up.
This really bothered me when I visited the USA (East coast). In retrospect I feel like I had the right to the highway, as long as I was driving. But no town square with a bench where I could just sit, no park where I could lean against a tree, no parcel of nature where I could just go for a walk. Cafés and restaurants were expensive and uncomfortable, clearly designed to push you out once the nominal transaction was complete. No wonder people eat in their car, alone.
I'm sure I missed a lot of good places during my visit, but I felt like the pattern was very quite obvious. Highway, Walmart, highway, Walmart, highway, Walmart. The forests aren't wild parts of nature, they're closed-off as-yet undeveloped land, awaiting their appointment with the axe. The town centers now have fewer options to linger than a classic mall. The suburbs are endless rows of freestanding houses, with no padding - no library, no shop, no playground, no outdoor gym, no football field. Maybe some pro-social resident set up a box for exchanging books between neighbors. That's it.
Not saying the rest of the world is perfect by any means. But in Sweden where I live, I feel like the I'm seeing positive changes over time, with new third spaces being added every year. In my town the city center is now car-free during summer time to make space for outdoor furniture, and the nearby cafés and bars thrive. They're adding grills for cooking to parks, making nature trails more accessible, and peppering the place with playgrounds and outdoor gyms. There's a long way to go to perfect but at least it's moving in the right direction.
algorithms that have devolved into echo chambers and amazon recommendations. yeah and anyone who creates is a third space is usually labelled an evil person or a conspiracy theorist and put on an FBI watch list. now they have, "an aging problem," at concerts, clubs and events because no one can afford them except for those in their late 40's early 60's, 2012 was the last affordable year for any of those things(, that's conservative it's more like 2014.) you're never preaching to the choir because there's a bunch of hive minds and if you're not adhering to them, you're the odd man out so having an opinion doesn't even fucking matter anymore.
just like this, this doesn't matter, right now what i am typing doesn't mean jack shit but at least you can put it out there. you can put your opinion and your voice out there. I guess that matters more than anything
Absolutely. But also remember that the concept of Third Places coined by Oldenburg focused on the wrong thing. A lot of the examples of "welcoming and leveling" places were actually pretty deeply exlusionary, which makes a lot of the Third Place rhetoric a white, male, heteronormative fantasy.
And importantly, it's starting from a contradictory place to build a theory of pure civic community around spaces that rely on capital. A business's primary goal is profit. The moment a patron stops spending money or takes up a table for too long, the illusion of "neutral civic ground" dissolves. By focusing on establishments (where the primary activity is conversation and consumer lingering), his theory ignores the Commons, the true public infrastructure like plazas, parks, and sidewalks. The argument can be made that instead of trying to revive Oldenburg's nostalgic storefronts, society should focus on the "right to the city" in the shared public ownership of physical space where citizens don't need a consumer identity to exist.
I can say that practically, growing up very low income, we (small sample of course) could exist for hours, months and years in these places without spending a dollar and without being harassed - and that was with a pretty diverse group (by race, gender, neon hair color and pierced bodies/clothing), but this was in a more predominately progressive, middle class community (bordering wealthy areas) to be fair. And importantly we did always exist in the shadow of it, regardless of spend, and that has to have an effect on some.
I can say that the behavior continued in a form as an adult when I would work from a certain coffee chain using angles with their loyalty program to buy a single coffee for under $2 and work the whole day, consuming maybe $50 retail while working in a more comfortable environment than I could afford otherwise, with connectivity, air conditioning and power.
So by no means ideal, but with today's desert of connection as an alternative, I think myself and others were able to learn, connect and grow in these spaces, within very limited means, and I can pretty confidently say without suffering impacts of indoctrination or desire to rejoin these places as an adult, as a "fully productive" and participatory member of society.
So my hope would be that people still had those imperfect spaces (of course supplementing the truly free community supported options you mention) for those lessons they did offer, the community one could build and the perspective gained by close proximity to the problems within these spaces (learning what not to do, seeing that the person who carried 4 bags from different stores still didn't look happy. It didn't "fix" her)
We should invest in whatever they hate the most. Obviously they don't hate hurting others or being selfish, so whatever they hate probably doesn't have those things and are safe for us.
Ultimately, maga’s unhealthiness is they refuse to adapt to reality, whether that’s climate science, economic data, or global best practices. Their policies actively make life worse for most Americans while enriching a tiny elite. The tragedy is that many of their own voters would benefit from the very systems they oppose, but corporate propaganda, tribalism and proudly choose to stay in dualism, keep them voting against their own interests repeatedly. Until that changes, the US will continue to lag behind nations that prioritize people over profits. Real truth sets us free!
Absolutely. Strong community bonds and local resilience should be a foremost corcern, and ideally come before ideology, heritage, or tradition.
The corporate fucks of the world are great at dividing us up and watching us fight each other over ideological and traditional differences, then laughing while they rob everyone blind.
all i want is the removal of all income taxes and do land value taxes the taxes have to come from those at the top that own everything 5000 sqft exemption and the ones using properties as rent they can go bankrupt i dont care use it or lose it. no one cares.
production lower inflation else you deserve bankruptcy.
This is the second time this exact meme has been posted to this sub, so I suppose this is the second time I have to say this.
Socialism does not inherently guarantee collective worker protections, nor was socialism itself designed specifically to provide them.
At its most basic level, socialism is an economic and political framework centered on social or public ownership and control of the means of production. Worker protections, labor rights, workplace safety regulations, unions, minimum wages, and social welfare programs are separate policy choices. They can exist under socialist, capitalist, and mixed economic systems.
More importantly, there is very little historical basis for claiming that socialism, simply by virtue of being socialism, guarantees the protections this meme is describing. In fact, many governments that have implemented socialist economic systems have had extensive records of suppressing independent labor organizations, restricting worker autonomy, and disregarding individual civil and political rights.
You can argue for those protections. You can argue for socialism. But conflating the two doesn't make the historical or economic argument any stronger.
The fight isn’t left vs right, it’s down vs up. That’s what they spent their money on, making sure we lowbies keep on fighting against each other. None of it works, except to make sure powerful people remain powerful and rich.
It never was right vs left, it never was generational. That's just what everyone has been duped into arguing over. And they love it. Because while people under 40 are bitching about all their problems being because caused by anyone over the age of 70, those ultra wealthy kid-fuckers and laughing their asses off funneling more tax dollars into their bank accounts
How? By funneling taxes to a central authority and empowering them? Because we're not empowering society by doing that. We're actually empowering just a small group, who gets all the agency to make decisions on behalf of everybody and, most likely, on behalf of themselves mostly. An actually fair society needs to be governed in a decentralized manner. On the far left, we've got communism, and we all know how that went, and on the far right we've got fascism, and we definitely know how that went.
I maintain my original hypothesis that "the left" and "the right" are simply constructs designed to keep up fighting among ourselves, where we mostly disagree with each other in a tribalist way, as opposed to actually discussing and thinking about the problems, and trying to come up with solutions. To me, it's plain simple that we need both mindsets combined to be able to actually fight the rich and the powerful.
But that's it from me on politics this week. As a problem solver, I have less and less interest on this pointless topic.
That is an anarchist position, anarchism is a strain of leftist thought.
To me, it’s plain simple that we need both mindsets combined to be able to actually fight the rich and the powerful.
We need right-wing thought to fight the rich and powerful? What part? Cutting taxes on the rich? Starting wars of aggression? Kicking down doors and rounding up immigrants?
The right is completely wrong, has no insight on anything, mostly on account of being completely anti-intellectual. All of their policies are about reinforcing existing heirarchies, strengthening the rich and weakening the poor. Opposing those policies is not "tribalism." I challenge you to name one right-wing position with any merit.
As a problem solver, I have less and less interest on this pointless topic.
Pointless topics! So you don't actually care about fighting the rich at all.
That is an anarchist position, anarchism is a strain of leftist thought.
Well, there's also anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism. But what's happening right here with this discussion is exactly my point. There's a senseless drive to put individuals into these tiny bubbles of left or right, and this solves nothing.
We need right-wing thought to fight the rich and powerful? What part? Cutting taxes on the rich? Starting wars of aggression? Kicking down doors and rounding up immigrants?
Nah, couldn't care less for those guys. It's freakin' insanity what's happening right now in the world. What I'm saying is that taxes merely shift the control elsewhere. If you have to tax, those are the guys to be taxed. My problem with taxes is that it accomplishes nothing really. This general position against "the rich" is also slightly biased, but completely understandable given the current events. Dude, I am absolutely disgusted by the stuff those guys are doing! It's mind blowing to me the level of insanity we have reached. Now, are you going to ask the government to help you out, when they are essentially the enemy? I don't get it. Also, are we gonna add to the chaos and make it worse, or are we actually gonna shift out of a destructive mindset and try to clearly identify problems and find solutions? It's just that revenge taxing the rich will essentially accomplish nothing beyond satisfying the egos of a few people.
Pointless topics! So you don’t actually care about fighting the rich at all.
I don't, not directly. I care about addressing the real problems, the core issues. For example, the fact that the rich and the powerful seem to be above the law. This is why I believe the decentralization of power is a fundamental mechanism in the fight against corruption. A central body of power will always be corrupt.
Well, there’s also anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism
"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't so much anarchism as it is a rebranding of feudalism. Anarchism is opposed to heirarchies, so it's incompatible with capitalism. Minarchism is an unrealistic, idealist ideology. Whichever class wields power over the state is going to use the state to advance their interests.
This general position against “the rich” is also slightly biased, but completely understandable given the current events.
It’s just that revenge taxing the rich will essentially accomplish nothing beyond satisfying the egos of a few people.
It's not biased, and it's not "revenge." The rich are a class, which is engaged in class warfare against the poor. Weakening them would be worthwhile even if we didn't get a direct benefit from it, because the fewer resources they have the less ability they have to impose worse conditions, and the more resources they have the more aggressive they can be.
Now, are you going to ask the government to help you out, when they are essentially the enemy?
An anarchist might oppose taxing taxing the rich for that reason.
I would argue that the government is merely a tool, that can be used by different classes for different purposes. It is not the primary enemy, which is the rich, but the tool is often used by the rich to advance their interests. Imposing taxes on the rich would be an example of the working class wielding the tool of the government against the rich.
I care about addressing the real problems, the core issues. For example, the fact that the rich and the powerful seem to be above the law.
That's what you just called a "pointless issue," isn't it? When we discuss politics, aren't we discussing strategies for addressing the power of the rich? Is it pointless to discuss those strategies?
It is, unfortunately, pointless, as the vast majority of people don't even bother to lift a finger to click 'like' on a post that's fighting for something they also care about. I've often been 'man yelling at cloud' trying to fight mass surveillance and privacy issues alone. There's a niche, of course, but, mostly, people are either afraid or don't care enough, so yeah, it feels pointless.
Also, let me take note that we have discussed the political spectrum and the worthiness of discussing politics, but we haven't really discussed anything worth discussing. Not that I didn't enjoy it, but this doesn't change my point of view. If anything, it consolidates it.
Things are only as bad as the people let them become. We voted ourselves out of democracy, so the people are really to blame. The way I see it, I won't be 'man yelling at cloud' anymore, and the less people stand up and shout, the bigger the penalty will be. It's unfortunate, but also self-serving.
Frankly, hearing the leader of the left party speak makes me dislike socialism. At least here in Sweden.
Something about the "fuck you, i'm right. But i wont explain why" attitude doesn't sit right. Casually making comments like "there aren't any insert opposition party in the town I come from" is frankly laughable. She just latched on to the first and apparently only dichotomy available in her surrounding and never thought about it again.
The point is collectivism in general. If you're that easily dissuaded from it by actions, or behaviour, or even just words of a random politician, you're the perfect rube to be exploted to keep the exploitative system chugging along
Life expectancy doubled in Russia, literacy rates went from 20-30% (depending on the region) to 99.9% within the span of decades. Healthcare was made free and high quality, same as education. Famine was gradually eliminated in a region where Tsarist agriculture made that a common affair. Homes were dramatically upgraded from wooden shacks in rural areas to decent apartments for everyone. I don't know where in Eastern Europe your family is from, but the great majority of society saw dramatic improvements compared to semi-feudalism before it. Aristocrats and capitalists definitely lost out, and the transition wasn't bloodless, but the vast majority of society pulled ahead.
The majority of socialist states emerged from semi-feudal societies, and they factually made dramatic improvements. The 1930s Soviet famine proves my point, the early 1930s was the last famine in the USSR outside of wartime, becuse by 1933 they had successfully collectivized agriculture and abolished the former Kulak system. The famine wasn't caused by socialism, it was ended by it.
I already acknowledged that there was a famine in the early 1930s. If your point was that this was a deliberate, intentional famine, then even serious liberal scholars believe it to have been a combination of adverse weather conditions and mismanagement. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above,' rather than of a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:
From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.
The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.
Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Comrade Kosior!
You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation in villages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?
Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.
Sincerely, J. Stalin
Evidence doesn't point to deliberately killing some of the Soviet Union's most loyal citizens in the breadbasket of the entire USSR, when they desperately needed to advance agricultural production (and did).
No? Socialism is a mode of production and distribution, not something as simple as a social safety net operating within the bounds of capitalism. This isn't a purity test, it's a definitional distinction.
87 replies
Grow your own food. Share what you can't use.
Connect with your neighbours. Offer to help with anything you're good at. Share tools with them.
Hyper individualism is capitalism's best friend. You can't borrow a chainsaw from someone you don't know. You have to buy zucchini from the store because you don't know anyone with a garden. You have to pay a plumber for a simple leak instead of someone you know being able to help. And so on.
The powers that be will shit themselves if we all start cooperating instead of fighting. Why do you think they stoke the anti-trans flames so hard? Why make up that they're eating the dogs and eating the cats?
They don't want us getting along. That's bad for business. You can do your part to fuck them up simply by remembering how to be a real human. Not a consumer.
I started a jalapeño pepper plant two years ago that's been popping out peppers like crazy. I hate peppers, so I give them to anyone who wants them around town.
I do not share tools though, they never seem to come back. If you need a tool or something I have, as long as you don't mind a furry foul mouthed Canadian I'll gladly come help though and bring them along.
most of all - ignore the last 100 years of socialist history detailing what a useless, inhumane disaster it's always been
Who is talking about socialism? Are you OK?
You heard it here first kids, plumbers exist because of capitalism.
For-profit plumbing businesses, yeah.
I know you're trying to be snarky or whatever.
That's an embarrassingly stupid thing to say.
I know!
Amongst each other, the billionaires are the biggest socialists of all. They are simply greedy and do not want to share their ill-gotten gains. "C'mon poors! Fight each other for my pleasure and profit!".
Old but still relavent.“But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners, the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests. Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that! You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you. They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it. George Carlin
I got about 2 sentences into that and knew it was the honorable George Carlin.
It worked, people are so dumb
And remember that they got rid of your third spaces so you couldn't discuss any of it (and made common affordable gathering options like concerts and sporting events out of reach for the same reason). Threw you into algorithms so you felt like you were only preaching to the choir or conversely that nobody held your same opinions/aspirations for something more - either way a formula for you to get exhausted and give up.
And you do feel exhausted.
This really bothered me when I visited the USA (East coast). In retrospect I feel like I had the right to the highway, as long as I was driving. But no town square with a bench where I could just sit, no park where I could lean against a tree, no parcel of nature where I could just go for a walk. Cafés and restaurants were expensive and uncomfortable, clearly designed to push you out once the nominal transaction was complete. No wonder people eat in their car, alone.
I'm sure I missed a lot of good places during my visit, but I felt like the pattern was very quite obvious. Highway, Walmart, highway, Walmart, highway, Walmart. The forests aren't wild parts of nature, they're closed-off as-yet undeveloped land, awaiting their appointment with the axe. The town centers now have fewer options to linger than a classic mall. The suburbs are endless rows of freestanding houses, with no padding - no library, no shop, no playground, no outdoor gym, no football field. Maybe some pro-social resident set up a box for exchanging books between neighbors. That's it.
Not saying the rest of the world is perfect by any means. But in Sweden where I live, I feel like the I'm seeing positive changes over time, with new third spaces being added every year. In my town the city center is now car-free during summer time to make space for outdoor furniture, and the nearby cafés and bars thrive. They're adding grills for cooking to parks, making nature trails more accessible, and peppering the place with playgrounds and outdoor gyms. There's a long way to go to perfect but at least it's moving in the right direction.
algorithms that have devolved into echo chambers and amazon recommendations. yeah and anyone who creates is a third space is usually labelled an evil person or a conspiracy theorist and put on an FBI watch list. now they have, "an aging problem," at concerts, clubs and events because no one can afford them except for those in their late 40's early 60's, 2012 was the last affordable year for any of those things(, that's conservative it's more like 2014.) you're never preaching to the choir because there's a bunch of hive minds and if you're not adhering to them, you're the odd man out so having an opinion doesn't even fucking matter anymore.
just like this, this doesn't matter, right now what i am typing doesn't mean jack shit but at least you can put it out there. you can put your opinion and your voice out there. I guess that matters more than anything
Absolutely. But also remember that the concept of Third Places coined by Oldenburg focused on the wrong thing. A lot of the examples of "welcoming and leveling" places were actually pretty deeply exlusionary, which makes a lot of the Third Place rhetoric a white, male, heteronormative fantasy.
And importantly, it's starting from a contradictory place to build a theory of pure civic community around spaces that rely on capital. A business's primary goal is profit. The moment a patron stops spending money or takes up a table for too long, the illusion of "neutral civic ground" dissolves. By focusing on establishments (where the primary activity is conversation and consumer lingering), his theory ignores the Commons, the true public infrastructure like plazas, parks, and sidewalks. The argument can be made that instead of trying to revive Oldenburg's nostalgic storefronts, society should focus on the "right to the city" in the shared public ownership of physical space where citizens don't need a consumer identity to exist.
Very true and a welcome point of view.
I can say that practically, growing up very low income, we (small sample of course) could exist for hours, months and years in these places without spending a dollar and without being harassed - and that was with a pretty diverse group (by race, gender, neon hair color and pierced bodies/clothing), but this was in a more predominately progressive, middle class community (bordering wealthy areas) to be fair. And importantly we did always exist in the shadow of it, regardless of spend, and that has to have an effect on some.
I can say that the behavior continued in a form as an adult when I would work from a certain coffee chain using angles with their loyalty program to buy a single coffee for under $2 and work the whole day, consuming maybe $50 retail while working in a more comfortable environment than I could afford otherwise, with connectivity, air conditioning and power.
So by no means ideal, but with today's desert of connection as an alternative, I think myself and others were able to learn, connect and grow in these spaces, within very limited means, and I can pretty confidently say without suffering impacts of indoctrination or desire to rejoin these places as an adult, as a "fully productive" and participatory member of society.
So my hope would be that people still had those imperfect spaces (of course supplementing the truly free community supported options you mention) for those lessons they did offer, the community one could build and the perspective gained by close proximity to the problems within these spaces (learning what not to do, seeing that the person who carried 4 bags from different stores still didn't look happy. It didn't "fix" her)
Thanks for taking the time to reply with your perspective, I've had a similar experience.
I don’t hate socialism. I hate socializing.
Same. Let me pay taxes and enjoy quality public services, but don't make me talk to the neighbors.
We need more Luigis
** Luigi intensifies **
The Epstein class must held to account for the rat fuckery they’re doing
If only they stuck with rats
We should invest in whatever they hate the most. Obviously they don't hate hurting others or being selfish, so whatever they hate probably doesn't have those things and are safe for us.
As much as possible just stop participating in capitalism.
Of course, when things start to go sideways, they are the first to scream for government assistance. The very definition of socialism.
In my case, they wasted their money.
But, yeah, too many people have been duped.
Ultimately, maga’s unhealthiness is they refuse to adapt to reality, whether that’s climate science, economic data, or global best practices. Their policies actively make life worse for most Americans while enriching a tiny elite. The tragedy is that many of their own voters would benefit from the very systems they oppose, but corporate propaganda, tribalism and proudly choose to stay in dualism, keep them voting against their own interests repeatedly. Until that changes, the US will continue to lag behind nations that prioritize people over profits. Real truth sets us free!
The billionaire class aren't "MAGA" (they manipulate MAGA and Greens for that matter)
This tiny elite that makes life worst for most Americans is Democrat and Republican (and UK royal family, etc.)
Real truth does set us free! It ain't "MAGA", they're as powerless as you are; it's "EPSTEIN FILES".
also co-opting anti-vaxxing too.
wasted effort
That's why the Epstein class can also be called parasites.
Absolutely. Strong community bonds and local resilience should be a foremost corcern, and ideally come before ideology, heritage, or tradition.
The corporate fucks of the world are great at dividing us up and watching us fight each other over ideological and traditional differences, then laughing while they rob everyone blind.
How much money do you need to spend to defund education and gate it behind fees?
all i want is the removal of all income taxes and do land value taxes the taxes have to come from those at the top that own everything 5000 sqft exemption and the ones using properties as rent they can go bankrupt i dont care use it or lose it. no one cares.
production lower inflation else you deserve bankruptcy.
Ok
This is the second time this exact meme has been posted to this sub, so I suppose this is the second time I have to say this.
Socialism does not inherently guarantee collective worker protections, nor was socialism itself designed specifically to provide them.
At its most basic level, socialism is an economic and political framework centered on social or public ownership and control of the means of production. Worker protections, labor rights, workplace safety regulations, unions, minimum wages, and social welfare programs are separate policy choices. They can exist under socialist, capitalist, and mixed economic systems.
More importantly, there is very little historical basis for claiming that socialism, simply by virtue of being socialism, guarantees the protections this meme is describing. In fact, many governments that have implemented socialist economic systems have had extensive records of suppressing independent labor organizations, restricting worker autonomy, and disregarding individual civil and political rights.
You can argue for those protections. You can argue for socialism. But conflating the two doesn't make the historical or economic argument any stronger.
Depends who you read, Marx, Lenin? Rosa Luxemburg? Robert Owen? Anton Pannekoek?
I think the word definition socialism depends on your country’s current and past local proponents.
The fight isn’t left vs right, it’s down vs up. That’s what they spent their money on, making sure we lowbies keep on fighting against each other. None of it works, except to make sure powerful people remain powerful and rich.
It never was right vs left, it never was generational. That's just what everyone has been duped into arguing over. And they love it. Because while people under 40 are bitching about all their problems being because caused by anyone over the age of 70, those ultra wealthy kid-fuckers and laughing their asses off funneling more tax dollars into their bank accounts
Those who want to act against the rich and powerful are called, "the left."
How? By funneling taxes to a central authority and empowering them? Because we're not empowering society by doing that. We're actually empowering just a small group, who gets all the agency to make decisions on behalf of everybody and, most likely, on behalf of themselves mostly. An actually fair society needs to be governed in a decentralized manner. On the far left, we've got communism, and we all know how that went, and on the far right we've got fascism, and we definitely know how that went.
I maintain my original hypothesis that "the left" and "the right" are simply constructs designed to keep up fighting among ourselves, where we mostly disagree with each other in a tribalist way, as opposed to actually discussing and thinking about the problems, and trying to come up with solutions. To me, it's plain simple that we need both mindsets combined to be able to actually fight the rich and the powerful.
But that's it from me on politics this week. As a problem solver, I have less and less interest on this pointless topic.
That is an anarchist position, anarchism is a strain of leftist thought.
We need right-wing thought to fight the rich and powerful? What part? Cutting taxes on the rich? Starting wars of aggression? Kicking down doors and rounding up immigrants?
The right is completely wrong, has no insight on anything, mostly on account of being completely anti-intellectual. All of their policies are about reinforcing existing heirarchies, strengthening the rich and weakening the poor. Opposing those policies is not "tribalism." I challenge you to name one right-wing position with any merit.
Pointless topics! So you don't actually care about fighting the rich at all.
Well, there's also anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism. But what's happening right here with this discussion is exactly my point. There's a senseless drive to put individuals into these tiny bubbles of left or right, and this solves nothing.
Nah, couldn't care less for those guys. It's freakin' insanity what's happening right now in the world. What I'm saying is that taxes merely shift the control elsewhere. If you have to tax, those are the guys to be taxed. My problem with taxes is that it accomplishes nothing really. This general position against "the rich" is also slightly biased, but completely understandable given the current events. Dude, I am absolutely disgusted by the stuff those guys are doing! It's mind blowing to me the level of insanity we have reached. Now, are you going to ask the government to help you out, when they are essentially the enemy? I don't get it. Also, are we gonna add to the chaos and make it worse, or are we actually gonna shift out of a destructive mindset and try to clearly identify problems and find solutions? It's just that revenge taxing the rich will essentially accomplish nothing beyond satisfying the egos of a few people.
I don't, not directly. I care about addressing the real problems, the core issues. For example, the fact that the rich and the powerful seem to be above the law. This is why I believe the decentralization of power is a fundamental mechanism in the fight against corruption. A central body of power will always be corrupt.
"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't so much anarchism as it is a rebranding of feudalism. Anarchism is opposed to heirarchies, so it's incompatible with capitalism. Minarchism is an unrealistic, idealist ideology. Whichever class wields power over the state is going to use the state to advance their interests.
It's not biased, and it's not "revenge." The rich are a class, which is engaged in class warfare against the poor. Weakening them would be worthwhile even if we didn't get a direct benefit from it, because the fewer resources they have the less ability they have to impose worse conditions, and the more resources they have the more aggressive they can be.
An anarchist might oppose taxing taxing the rich for that reason.
I would argue that the government is merely a tool, that can be used by different classes for different purposes. It is not the primary enemy, which is the rich, but the tool is often used by the rich to advance their interests. Imposing taxes on the rich would be an example of the working class wielding the tool of the government against the rich.
That's what you just called a "pointless issue," isn't it? When we discuss politics, aren't we discussing strategies for addressing the power of the rich? Is it pointless to discuss those strategies?
It is, unfortunately, pointless, as the vast majority of people don't even bother to lift a finger to click 'like' on a post that's fighting for something they also care about. I've often been 'man yelling at cloud' trying to fight mass surveillance and privacy issues alone. There's a niche, of course, but, mostly, people are either afraid or don't care enough, so yeah, it feels pointless.
Also, let me take note that we have discussed the political spectrum and the worthiness of discussing politics, but we haven't really discussed anything worth discussing. Not that I didn't enjoy it, but this doesn't change my point of view. If anything, it consolidates it.
Things are only as bad as the people let them become. We voted ourselves out of democracy, so the people are really to blame. The way I see it, I won't be 'man yelling at cloud' anymore, and the less people stand up and shout, the bigger the penalty will be. It's unfortunate, but also self-serving.
Frankly, hearing the leader of the left party speak makes me dislike socialism. At least here in Sweden.
Something about the "fuck you, i'm right. But i wont explain why" attitude doesn't sit right. Casually making comments like "there aren't any insert opposition party in the town I come from" is frankly laughable. She just latched on to the first and apparently only dichotomy available in her surrounding and never thought about it again.
The point is collectivism in general. If you're that easily dissuaded from it by actions, or behaviour, or even just words of a random politician, you're the perfect rube to be exploted to keep the exploitative system chugging along
Yea the person your replying to is just a pig looking for an excuse to validate his asshole feelings. He also says shit like this.
So if i'm disuaded by the actions of others that try to push an idea on me, then i'm the tool? Cool.
This isn't true. People hate socialism because it has never worked. People end up worst off under collectivism.
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
Yeah because every man for himself and the glorification of selfishness has done wonders for society. Get bent.
Socialism always works, and has always dramatically improved the lives of the people as compared to what came before.
Where has it worked ? It didn't work out too well for my family in Eastern Europe.
Life expectancy doubled in Russia, literacy rates went from 20-30% (depending on the region) to 99.9% within the span of decades. Healthcare was made free and high quality, same as education. Famine was gradually eliminated in a region where Tsarist agriculture made that a common affair. Homes were dramatically upgraded from wooden shacks in rural areas to decent apartments for everyone. I don't know where in Eastern Europe your family is from, but the great majority of society saw dramatic improvements compared to semi-feudalism before it. Aristocrats and capitalists definitely lost out, and the transition wasn't bloodless, but the vast majority of society pulled ahead.
Compared to feudalism. Low bar, huh?
Plus lol@famines. Ukraine wants a word.
The majority of socialist states emerged from semi-feudal societies, and they factually made dramatic improvements. The 1930s Soviet famine proves my point, the early 1930s was the last famine in the USSR outside of wartime, becuse by 1933 they had successfully collectivized agriculture and abolished the former Kulak system. The famine wasn't caused by socialism, it was ended by it.
Holodomor is a river in Egypt.
I already acknowledged that there was a famine in the early 1930s. If your point was that this was a deliberate, intentional famine, then even serious liberal scholars believe it to have been a combination of adverse weather conditions and mismanagement. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:
Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:
From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.
Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.
Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.
Evidence doesn't point to deliberately killing some of the Soviet Union's most loyal citizens in the breadbasket of the entire USSR, when they desperately needed to advance agricultural production (and did).
You are right, only 39 of the top 40 economies have socialist policies like universal education, Healthcare or workers rights. Total failure.
You're making the common mistake of confusing social welfare and socialism
No true Scotsman
Okay then, I guess that means you love capitalism since all of those 40 economies are capitalist.
100%. If they qualify as socialist, they certainly are also capitalist. All of them.
Yes, I agree. Not sure what your point is...
Welfare isn't socialism, this isn't the gotcha you think it is.
No true Scotsman
Okay, then all of those socialist governments you list are capitalist. They are all certainly as capitalist as they are socialist. no exceptions.
Yes, they certainly are.
No? Socialism is a mode of production and distribution, not something as simple as a social safety net operating within the bounds of capitalism. This isn't a purity test, it's a definitional distinction.
Read a book
Team sports