Is it when you govern from the capitol? : memes

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 28 points 6 days ago (2 children)

That's why terms like liberal are useful.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And terms like bootlicker

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

Sure.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

ime that only makes liberals even more confused

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Then we explain it to them until they get it. It's not hard to explain that capitalists are those who own capital, and liberals are those that support capitalism.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They are often just married to the notion that their principals of liberalism are not mutually exclusive with subjecting capital to public ownership.

I personally find dealing with that separate issue goes nowhere real fast with the average person and alienating them isn’t helpful either so I take what I can get.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago

People license themselves into believing that that which benefits them is good. They aren't married to the ideas, they willingly choose to believe them until their material conditions prove them inaccurate through their new lived experience. Red Sails has a series on "brainwashing" that I consider critical reading for anyone wanting to agitate, especially Roderic Day's Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."

[–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hi, I'm a Capitalist, I have an irrational urge to use proper capitalization!

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hello, I am a capitolist. I just really love government buildings.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 3 points 4 days ago

Greetings, I am a Cap Italist. I really like Italian hats.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 6 days ago

... the 'temporarily embarassed millionaire' has 'aspirational' capital, in a fanciful, idealized future.

AKA, 'The American Dream'

Its a kind of faith-based magical thinking, delusion.

Which, as George Carlin let us all know, I think over a decade ago now...

... 'you have to be asleep, to believe.'

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I had a fuckwit self-professed 'communist' co-worker many years ago that tried to tell me that my education and skills was my capital. :|

[–] applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I don't think anyone would let me use my skills as collateral to take out a big ass loan to buy some new skills while I rent out my skills for others to use while I sit on my ass getting richer just because I own my own skills.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 5 days ago

Like I said, he was a fuckwit.

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

This made me laugh

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

under very specific context I can understand conflating assets with capital. but I doubt that's the case

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

"but some day I might! And then people like me better watch their step!"

[–] degen@midwest.social 8 points 6 days ago

Ok dummy, but I get paid in capital /s

[–] Abrinoxus@lemmy.today 8 points 6 days ago

"b-but i have money" Has savings and stockshares that would last a year or two without work

[–] AethiopeRoot@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 days ago

Funny but true

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's like Lemmy and Reddit, people want the promise of more content.

In theory Lemmy could be the more active network. What does it take to make that real?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't follow how this relates to the meme

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Workers can prefer to live in a capitalist society if they end up with owning more, or just hope so. So they can be capitalist despite not owning capital. Of course that ignores the distinction between the role as capitalist and the believe.

In general, people don't value being in control. If they would, people would have moved to Lemmy.

There is still the opportunity that those who care actively push Lemmy beyond its natural growth to make it competitive with Reddit. But at what cost? Then people would choose Lemmy, but not by conviction.

Similarly, people could stop being capitalists by being able to work in a country with a better offer. But that wouldn't make them anti-capitalist.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

You're confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit's decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

what's the cutoff between capital owners and regular rich assholes, it a certain $ amount or is just as soon as your the one paying people?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

There are blurred lines when it comes to the edges of class, but capitalists as a class are those that essentially make their profits by purchasing labor and raw materials, and selling the products of that labor and raw material in a market.

[+] plyth@feddit.org -7 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.

To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism's decline is like waiting for Reddit's decline. It's always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What makes you talk so confidently about things you clearly don't know the first thing about?

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 4 days ago

Obviously the lack of knowledge. I don't know better. What do you think is wrong?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. "Raw capitalism" doesn'r really mean anything.

To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

For liberalism, see sibling comment.

we need to overthrow the state

Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Capitalism with monopoly is still capitalism, Liberalism being a failed ideology does not mean it ceases to be Liberalism as it fails. There's absolutely a we within capitalism, the working classes are a we.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How would socialism prevent power from accumulating? Liberals could probably do the same with capital.

There should be a working class we in capitalism but I don't see it. Why do you think that it exists and that it is not dispersed?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What do you mean "power accumulating?" This sounds like you're talking about magic or something. Capitalists use capital for their plunder, I don't see what you mean by linking that to socialism. As for the working class "we," are you asking why we aren't organized? That takes time and effort.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What do you mean “power accumulating?”

People in power tend to grab more power. Like Capitalism would be acceptable if there was a progressive tax on capital. But those with much capital would collude to undermine it. Likewise socialism could also decay if the people in power would use the power to their advantage. How is that mitigated?

“we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized?

Not exactly. I think that there is no 'we' among the working class which prevents the organizing.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

People in power don't tend to "grab more power." "Power" is not a metaphysical power that corrupts people, what actually happens is that systems like capitalism reward those that get profit by any means necessary.

Capitalism would not be acceptable even with a progressive tax. The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible, and that all profit a capitalist could make comes from value workers created.

Not only this, but capitalism trends towards imperialism and collapse, it's unsustainable. Over time, there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall due to a rise in the ratio of capital to labor as representing the value of a commodity. This is combatted by expansion to raise absolute profits, and by monopoly to raise rates of profit. What this creates is a systemic push towards underdeveloping the global sourh, placing compradors in power, and super-exploiting foreign workers for super profits.

The US Empire is at the helm, but western Europe and strategic allies also benefit and participate in this system. No amount of progressive taxation can fix this, what we need is for humanity to become the master of capital. We need to work towards collectivization of all production and distribution, and orient this towards satisfying the needs of everyone.

I also have no idea what you're hinting at by saying "there's no we."

[–] plyth@feddit.org -5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People in power don’t tend to “grab more power.”

Why do you believe that?

The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible

Same problem in Socialism among workers unless all are paid equally.

capitalist could make comes from value workers created.

Capitalists bring the company. There would be no capitalists if workers would create their own companies in sufficcient numbers.

capitalist could make comes from value workers created.

Yes

and collapse, it’s unsustainable. ...

I think that is lore of hope that is wrong. At last there would be one capitalist, owning everything. What should challenge his power if workers are kept placit and divided?

No amount of progressive taxation can fix this

Why? If there would be enough taxation, UBI jobs would pay their worth and profits would shrink. Problem is that Capitalists would oppose this, and still resource allocation by value and not benefit.

humanity to become the master of capital.

That's fine with me.

We need to work towards collectivization

I also have no idea what you’re hinting at by saying “there’s no we.”

Where is the collective that does the collectivization?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Power isn't a supernatural corrupting force, power is a tool, not a need itself. There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.

Socialism works to eradicate class distinctions. Workers wanting more for their labor is fine, but in capitalism it's the capitalists that hold all of the leverage and thus pay workers as little as possible. Capitalists are parasites.

Capitalists do not "bring the company," they own the paper that legally entails them to it. The workers are the ones that run the company, capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint.

If there was a single capitalist owning everything, then there wouldn't be. Capitalism demands competition and circulation of commodities, capitalists depend on that for profit. If it all dies, then capitalism would cease to function and break down, and the ensuing fallout would result in either socialism or barbarism.

As I alluded to above, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in a finite world results in gradual breakdown of capitalism. Imperialism causes it to stick around for longer, but also prompts revolution in the global south. Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.

As for collectivization, it just sounds like you're asking why we aren't yet organized. Some countries already have organized and successfully established socialism, the rest of us still need to organize.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

power is a tool, not a need itself.

Money and Capital is also not a need. Of course, capital is accumulating. But without making good decisions, capital would decay and be overtaken by competitors. Capitalists make good decisions to maintain and increase power. Power is no physical need but a mental one.

There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.

Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.

Workers wanting more for their labor is fine

How to settle among different classes of workers?

capitalists that hold all of the leverage

Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.

capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint

If workers would do the business part.

Capitalism demands competition

No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It's liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.

circulation of commodities

Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.

Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.

If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?

As for collectivization, it just sounds like you’re asking why we aren’t yet organized.

No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don't see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it's a tool. Capitalism selects for those that can best get the most profits, ergo power is useful in achieving those ends. It isn't about making "good" decisions, but profitable ones.

Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.

This is a cop-out answer. People don't have a natural desire to "rise in hierarchies." If that's the best way to improve your material conditions then people will desire to rise, not for an obsession over power or domination.

How to settle among different classes of workers?

If you mean between the peasantry and proletariat, the answer is to industrialize agriculture and fold everyone into the proletariat gradually (alongside collectivizing production and distribution to erase class). If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.

Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.

Utter fantasy. UBI is just a form of social welfare, but with capitalists in charge of the state UBI will only exist in a manner that benefits capitalists. The state isn't above class struggle, but within it. Further, capitalists do not labor. The day to day management of companies is done by workers, capitalists contribute nothing but the fact that they legally own the tools.

No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It’s liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.

Profit comes from underpaying workers. Profit is made by selling commodities for their value, which is made up of raw materials, tool usage, etc called "constant capital," and for wages, called "variable capital." Constant capital is crystallized prior labor, the profit comes from paying a worker for only a small portion of their labor time, regulated around cost of reproduction of labor (ie, minimum customary living standards). Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit, which is why companies try to seek monopoly, but they also need competition in order to keep circulation of commodities flowing for their own valorization of invested capital.

Capitalism kills itself, it's a contradictory system.

Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.

Think of it this way: If a single capitalist owned everything, then cost of goods collapses. There is no circulation anymore, only planned production and distribution, and absolutely no organized class for protecting said single capitalist. Capitalism would cease to function. Company towns only "worked" because they existed in the context of a grander market that the capitalists could get all that they wanted from.

If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?

Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain under it. That's why I'm saying that this hypothetical is impossible and would collapse immediately, just like anarcho-capitalism. It fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works.

No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don’t see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.

This is a very western viewpoint, and one that is increasingly incorrect. As capitalism decays, class awareness is rising alongside class struggle.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it’s a tool.

Top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self actualization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

not for an obsession over power or domination.

Maybe some other reader can chime in? I still believe people seek power, (*if only as a tool for self actualization.)

If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.

How should they settle wages?

but with capitalists in charge of the state

UBI in a democracy could be possible.

Further, capitalists do not labor.

That's a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.

Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit,

Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.

The following parts are essentially all the same:

Capitalism kills itself, it’s a contradictory system.

If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.

no organized class for protecting said single capitalist.

Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.

Company towns only “worked” because they existed in the context

Why is the context important if one owns everything?

Why would they need profits?

Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain

Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn't have to collapse.

class awareness is rising alongside class struggle

Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is self actualization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%E2%80%99s_hierarchy_of_needs

Per wikipedia the link you gave: Although widely used and researched, the hierarchy of needs has been criticized for its lack of conclusive supporting evidence and its validity remains contested. There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives. Power doesn't foster a thirst for power.

How should they settle wages?

In a socialist economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Wages are more strongly controlled via the administration, but until we get to a point where we can distribute according to need, we will distribute according to work, including variance for skill, danger, and intensity. See how socialist countries already settle wages.

UBI in a democracy could be possible.

Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Any social reforms gained by the working classes in the context of an economy dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish. Democracy is only compatible with socialism and communism, for the most part.

That’s a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.

They don't even need to do that, they pay people to do this. No value is created via ownership.

Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.

Workers are the buyers, except for luxury goods which are targeting capitalists, as well as industrial equipment, etc. Workers cannot be paid the full value of their labor and still have the capitalists profit. Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn't created by ownership, nor by charging monopoly prices.

If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.

This doesn't follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.

Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.

Administration is not a distinct class, you're trying to conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.

Why is the context important if one owns everything?

Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad, to better paid workers and other capitalists, as well as purchasing goods from outside of the company town. Company towns weren't selling purely to their own workers.

Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn’t have to collapse.

It has to collapse if it is to remain capitalism, because the idea of a system where a single mega-capitalist owns everything in a closed system is one that has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.

Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.

Workers have already successfully established socialism for billions of people, and as capitalism decays the suffering comes with it. Imperialism is collapsing and the rate of profit is falling.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives.

So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.

controlled via the administration,

dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish.

Isn't that the same concentration of power?

Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn’t created by ownership

Only in global communism. The charged workers don't have to be the same as the producing workers.

If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.

This doesn’t follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.

I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.

conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.

There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It's like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get's more than everybody else.

Why is the context important if one owns everything?

Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad

If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.

has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.

Why is that inevitable?

capitalism decays the suffering comes with it

Why rely on it instead of building a 'we' on its own?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.

That's true of any society, for the most part. Socialist countries do end up doing this much better than peer countries though. Also, in socialism, the working class is in power. Administrative positions exist, but they aren't unaccountable or anything.

Isn’t that the same concentration of power?

Not at all. Collectivization of production and distribution into one democratically run system does naturally follow from the groundwork paved by late stage capitalism, yes, but this collectivization also brings with it democratization of power.

Only in global communism. The charged workers don’t have to be the same as the producing workers.

I don't see how this relates to communism, moreover the working class as a whole is the class that produces and consumes. The company towns only worked somewhat because the commodities they produced were sold outside, making everything a company town wouldn't work.

I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.

Still don't see your point.

There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It’s like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get’s more than everybody else.

Not at all. Buying goods with money earned isn't the same as circulation of capital. Capital transmogrifies from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism, and prices collapse. This "mega-capitalist" would be overthrown instantly and socialism or barbarism would take its place.

If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.

There is for profit. You're trying to create a weird utopian mega-capitalism that would, the instant it existed, collapse into socialism or barbarism.

Why is that inevitable?

A single person can't actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly. This is the same kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.

Why rely on it instead of building a ‘we’ on its own?

We don't, we rely on organizing. Capitalism's decay speeds up that process.

[–] plyth@feddit.org -3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.

Still don’t see your point.

I don't understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.

A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.

from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

The single capitalist would still own the means of production.

and prices collapse.

The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don't have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.

This “mega-capitalist” would be overthrown instantly

Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.

A single person can’t actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly.

Make it a hundred.

kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.

In which way? Wiki couldn't help me.

We don’t, we rely on organizing. Capitalism’s decay speeds up that process.

Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

I don’t understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.

A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.

You're confusing the ability for non-capitalist systems to function without circulation of commodities as their basis with the ability for capitalism to do so. Capitalism functions by this, it's how capital is valorized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

The single capitalist would still own the means of production.

A "capitalist" system where you have a single person that owns everything is both structurally impossible (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and also not capitalism. You've gone beyond the relations of bourgeois and proletarians into a system owned by a single autocrat, which would immediately cease. Capital isn't circulating, and it isn't being valorized, and this one person could not possibly get everyone to go along with treating them as god-emperor.

These kinds of hypotheticals will never come to pass, and thus it's pointless to discuss beyond entertainment value.

The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don’t have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.

Market efficiency doesn't exist here, there isn't a market for labor. It's one capitalist. Prices don't come from thin-air, and the capitalist has no use for money because they own literally everything. Systems of accounting would not work here.

Make it a hundred.

A hundred competing mega-capitalists would still be close to collapse, but could feasibly exist. They would compete and actually be able to valorize their capital, the way capitalists exploit workers today.

In which way? Wiki couldn’t help me.

Simply imagining a society doesn't mean it can actually exist. Anarcho-capitalism can't exist because the state is what legitimizes property relations. Same with your example, both would fall apart into something new.

Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.

Humans naturally do cooperate, and we've seen workers organize to establish socialism. Further, fascism doesn't really stabilize anything, and neither does war, it only temporarily buys time while accelerating revolutionary fervor.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

liberalism is defined by its adherence to capitalism; if you're not a capitalist, then you're also not a liberal.

Memes

Rules: