Yep, the man himself

The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

Puts into perspective all the (justified) ripping on libs we do here.

If western economy crashes while BRICS doesn’t that’s going to utterly discredit the west.

People in the imperial core would never be told of this. The next crash, regardless of where its effects fall, will be described as a worldwide phenomenon. If you point out other countries are doing fine libs will call you a shill and reactionaries will make some racist joke about the rest of the world living in huts/the U.S. is better even while its economy crumbles.

This isn’t necessarily the case, see Hexbear. I think the most important questions when parsing who we can work with (among anarchists or libertarians, for that matter), are:

1. Does this person genuinely want to improve the world for other people?
2. Is this person serious enough about that to address the practical implications of stuff like “what do you do when fascists want to start a newspaper on Day 1 of your leftist utopia?”
3. Can this person be peeled away from the bipartisan consensus on imperialism?
4. Does this person have any other reactionary opinions (e.g., bigotry) that they are unable or unwilling to improve on?

you are categorically wrong to suggest that the My Lai massacre is portrayed in Western media today as anything other than a horrific attack upon civilians

It’s not portrayed at all. Every year you’ll see articles about Tiananmen Square in corporate media – My Lai (or any of a dozen similar U.S. atrocities) are left to history classes.

deleted by creator

Same can be applied to Xinjiang propaganda. “Oh, the State Department now cares about Muslim lives?”

Negative WAR race

deleted by creator

an sizable fraction of the entire country wants to just ignore them

I’m not an accelerationist, but there’s a reason I haven’t completely written it off

To the capitalist, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury.

Marx, I Fucking Told You, Bro

funny relatable memes

I’ll let you know when I see one!

What’s the deal with that instance? Linux stuff?

If you don’t generate enough revenue to cover any other business expense, you don’t have a workable business plan (unless you’re a tech grifter gorging on VC money, but that’s another story).

If you don’t generate enough revenue to cover decent wages, you don’t have a workable business plan.

It’s astounding how much ground he covers while still being concise.

That can be fixed with restrictions on what corporations can get away with

The problem is that capital can and does react to this. Companies will bribe and lobby until they can erode whatever meager guardrails you managed to install, and in the meantime they’ll carefully calculate how much they can break the law before the consequences outweigh the benefits.

As long as capital is the main driver of politics this will keep happening. “Take money out of politics” doesn’t work, either, because capital will erode or evade those laws, too. You do have to look at moving on from capitalism if you want anything more than a small, temporary change.

A kinder version of a company town is still a company town, in the same way high-paying wage labor is still wage labor.

This is not Google being charitable and caring about housing prices in the surrounding area. These are the people most able to work remotely; Google is bringing them back to their expensive office to justify its existence and saying “this time I’ll be your landlord, too.”

Trump did worse, and did it more blatantly, but this is bad, too.

In response to questions from Congressman Goldman about the [Joe Biden] brand’s alleged impact, Archer said that it appeared to shield Burisma “because people would be intimidated to mess with them…”

Republicans on the committee asked Archer about two dinners, one in 2014 and another in 2015 at a restaurant in Washington, D.C., with Hunter Biden’s foreign business associates, both of which the then-vice president attended…

Archer, according to the transcript, also testified that the elder Biden was put on speaker phone with business contacts, potential business associates including foreign national “maybe 20 times” during the course of Archer’s and Hunter Biden’s business relationship. Joe Biden was put on the phone to sell “the brand,” Archer said.

It looks like a conscious effort to imply favoritism without being stupid enough to say it out loud. It’s not normal to invite your dad to dinner with your business associates, especially when your dad is VP. It’s not normal to loop your dad in on a bunch of business calls, especially when your dad is VP.

Is anyone seriously suggesting Hunter Biden got on the board of a Ukranian energy company on his own merits? There’s one reason you have that guy in a plush job.