'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math'

[ignatius]

30 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

thanks for explaining but i don't see how capitalism requires exploiting populations. bad things are done by people motivated by greed so we should not allow people to be motivated by profit? why not just police wrong-doing and allow people to be motivated by profit? 

the expense you blame on capitalism, i think we could get into how nothing has only one cause. i could blame my problems on prehistoric butterflies or something but maybe that's not a useful line of causation to focus on. i think there's a terminology problem in discussing this topic, so i will say that when i refer to the word i mean the idea of facilitating productivity by allowing people to own their businesses. i think that's the main idea. i genuinly don't see how it makes sense to blame the idea of facilitating productivity by allowing people to own businesses for whatever bad things humans have done, even if they were powerful corporate actors. problems of power do not mean we should eliminate the right to become powerful. communism just consolidates power to an extremely narrow subset.

again, i genuinely don't get blaming all kinds of things on the idea of facilitating productivity by allowing indiduals to own businesses. humans are dumb all over and it's hard to find things that aren't mistakes.

what i see is a trend of people blaming all kinds of things on a freedom that has brought us the prosperity of the modern world. longterm data pretty clearly places our time as better by most key metrics.

of course there are major problems in the world, i just don't think it makes sense to exclude capitalism from a society. i'm for more socialism but i just get bummed out when people think the enemy is the right to own a business. i think the terminology is vague. USA is socialist despite being capitalist. bangladesh has capitalism despite being socialist. am i for more socialism? yes. do i view capitalism itself as a problem? no. maybe in other people's minds they have their own definition of capitalism where it also means malicious greed or something. i am not pro malicious greed.

we're going to have markets. .there's always been markets.. they're often really effective and efficient when they happen sort of organically.. for lack of a better word.. they fill a need and it's a thing you see that some regimes like north korea allow to exist because they're much more effect than what the government can or is willing to do to for example, feed its people. 

that's not the point i'm trying to make. i'm not saying exclude all forms of capitalism.  what i am saying is that in its current form it's not going to work for much longer.  so, you may say that "our time is best time in the history of time" or whatever.. but get back to be in 10 or 50 years and see how you feel about that. we can see how that sentiment ages. 

from my american point of view, taking into account slavery, colonialism and its effects on the world.. .. i just don't think it's possible to split hairs about it. trying to remove "malicious greed" from wall street or standard operating procedures of multi national corporations is about the most naive and pie in the sky type thing a person can imagine. you might as well imagine god as a giant magic taco that shits ice cream. 

there's nothing wrong with owning a business and making a buck. owning a business that relies on chopping off the limbs of children and native people as a punishment for not harvesting enough rubber from the rubber trees is a problem. 

it's not possible to escape blame for these things. it's not possible to ignore extracting resources at the barrel of a gun so those resrouces can be made into batteries or solder for PCBs etc. 

so far.. on a large scale.. beyond basics of markets formed with some kind mutual aid in mind..  i don't think we've see a "benign" form of capitalism.. only the malignant kind. 

sure, nothing has only one cause but there's often a driving force or ideology.. whether it's white supremacy -> colonialism or something else... so, trying to escape the horrors of how we got to where we are isn't at all possible and in america it's why schools can't teach actual history and instead they tell kids in texas that slaves were happy and had BBQs every day after being int he fields and there was music and dancing. 

i mean.. look at India.. the famine in Bengal that killed like 10 million people. the famine was created by the brits so they could make more money. they didn't allow the farmers to keep some of their own food even when they were starving.. adn this after the brits imposed their way of farming onto a land/culture that had been doing fine for fucking ever. 

the same thing happened to ireland w/what is commonly called the potato famine. 

none of this stuff is new. if you want to study history and how these things came to be and who the people were and what their motivations were etc then you need to go dig in. 

i don't have all the answers or any really. reading, interviews, podcasts etc.. patterns emerge through the history. it's easier to do the math on capitalism and its effects when you see what happened outside the USA or UK or Eu etc. . USA hegemony in the region has been devastating for south and central america for a hundred+ years. same can said for other other hegemonies effects on other parts of the world. 

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by ignatius

[may be rude]

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i'm not saying exclude all forms of capitalism.

ok so i think we agree on what my point was, here.

 

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

but get back to be in 10 or 50 years and see how you feel about that. we can see how that sentiment ages. 

believe me i know. oil power is the single biggest problem this planet has, and i just hope they don't break the planet too bad

 

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

from my american point of view, taking into account slavery, colonialism and its effects on the world.. .. i just don't think it's possible to split hairs about it. trying to remove "malicious greed" from wall street or standard operating procedures of multi national corporations is about the most naive and pie in the sky type thing a person can imagine. you might as well imagine god as a giant magic taco that shits ice cream. 

ok so right here you admit that you are unwilling to differentiate within something as broad as... american history going back hundreds of years? not willing to break that down at all? it's just all one thing? capitalism? you point to bad actors but ignore good actors. are there no good businesses or corporations? it's possible to split hairs. you can have the right and you can have people who misuse the right. that doesn't mean there's a flaw with the right. these are hairs worth splitting because frankly you seem to be conflating distinct entities. malicious greed is not a result of capitalism, it existed before it. crimes happening in a capitalist society does not mean capitalism is fundamentally flawed. you agree with me on that. the crimes happening are not necessarily part of capitalism. it's inaccurate to define capitalism by things that it does not require. wall street is not capitalism, it is wall street. the problems of wall street are not capitalism. capitalism is a right to own a business.

another usage of the word is also for describing societies as more or less capitalistic, meaning relying on market corrections more or less than government planning. i'm a big lib who loves regulation, i'm not defending free market capitalism like what paul ryan and the tea baggers pushed. 

here's the trap: the more the left thinks they hate capitalism, the more a lot of voters are going to vote red because of it. i find it interesting that all of a sudden everyone was pushing this narrative on the internet................

 

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

there's nothing wrong with owning a business and making a buck. owning a business that relies on chopping off the limbs of children and native people as a punishment for not harvesting enough rubber from the rubber trees is a problem. 

i mean yeah. when i look at the problem of people cutting people's hands off, my mind does not go to "capitalism"

 

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

so far.. on a large scale.. beyond basics of markets formed with some kind mutual aid in mind..  i don't think we've see a "benign" form of capitalism.. only the malignant kind. 

i mean i think it's cool that bill gates uses his money to try to rid the world of malaria and stuff like that. there are good aspects. tons of things invented, etc. why ascribe bad things to capitalism but not good?

 

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i mean.. look at India.. the famine in Bengal that killed like 10 million people. the famine was created by the brits so they could make more money. they didn't allow the farmers to keep some of their own food even when they were starving.. adn this after the brits imposed their way of farming onto a land/culture that had been doing fine for fucking ever. 

we agree that eliminating the freedom to own a business is not the solution. human nature is fucked up and it was so before free societies and before the concept of capitalism. i'm still feeling the twinge that you're pointing at [everything] and calling it "capitalism." 

 

47 minutes ago, ignatius said:

the same thing happened to ireland w/what is commonly called the potato famine. 

none of this stuff is new. if you want to study history and how these things came to be and who the people were and what their motivations were etc then you need to go dig in. 

i don't have all the answers or any really. reading, interviews, podcasts etc.. patterns emerge through the history. it's easier to do the math on capitalism and its effects when you see what happened outside the USA or UK or Eu etc. . USA hegemony in the region has been devastating for south and central america for a hundred+ years. same can said for other other hegemonies effects on other parts of the world. 

i appreciate you explaining your thoughts. i agree that the greed and immorality of human nature is fucked up. i think we agree that the freedom to own a business is not a flawed idea and that it can work and that we should keep this freedom. that was my main point. 

i won't act like i can fully fathom the wrongness of many acts from history. we're an ugly species. each individual is a mixed bag, some are pretty good, some are quite rotten. i just don't view a solution being doing away with capitalism. and i find it weird that all of a sudden everybody is talking about it. strikes me as some kind of a narrative thing. and it's definitely serving the GOP.

Edited July 24, 2022 by trying to be less rude

[prdctvsm]

[ignatius]

10 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

ok so i think we agree on what my point was, here.

believe me i know. oil power is the single biggest problem this planet has, and i just hope they don't break the planet too bad

ok so right here you admit that you are unwilling to differentiate within something as broad as... american history going back hundreds of years? not willing to break that down at all? it's just all one thing? capitalism? you point to bad actors but ignore good actors. are there no good businesses or corporations? it's possible to split hairs. you can have the right and you can have people who misuse the right. that doesn't mean there's a flaw with the right. these are hairs worth splitting because frankly you seem to be conflating distinct entities. malicious greed is not a result of capitalism, it existed before it. crimes happening in a capitalist society does not mean capitalism is fundamentally flawed. you agree with me on that. the crimes happening are not necessarily part of capitalism. it's inaccurate to define capitalism by things that it does not require. wall street is not capitalism, it is wall street. the problems of wall street are not capitalism. capitalism is a right to own a business.

another usage of the word is also for describing societies as more or less capitalistic, meaning relying on market corrections more or less than government planning. i'm a big lib who loves regulation, i'm not defending free market capitalism like what paul ryan and the tea baggers pushed. 

here's the trap: the more the left thinks they hate capitalism, the more a lot of voters are going to vote red because of it. i find it interesting that all of a sudden everyone was pushing this narrative on the internet................

i mean yeah. when i look at the problem of people cutting people's hands off, my mind does not go to "capitalism"

i mean i think it's cool that bill gates uses his money to try to rid the world of malaria and stuff like that. there are good aspects. tons of things invented, etc. why ascribe bad things to capitalism but not good?

we agree that eliminating the freedom to own a business is not the solution. human nature is fucked up and it was so before free societies and before the concept of capitalism. i'm still feeling the twinge that you're pointing at [everything] and calling it "capitalism." 

i appreciate you explaining your thoughts. i agree that the greed and immorality of human nature is fucked up. i think we agree that the freedom to own a business is not a flawed idea and that it can work and that we should keep this freedom. that was my main point. 

i won't act like i can fully fathom the wrongness of many acts from history. we're an ugly species. each individual is a mixed bag, some are pretty good, some are quite rotten. i just don't view a solution being doing away with capitalism. and i find it weird that all of a sudden everybody is talking about it. strikes me as some kind of a narrative thing. and it's definitely serving the GOP.

i guess i'm not expressing myself well enough. america was built on white supremacy and slavery. the "new world" was built on white supremacy and slavery. spanish in the americas imported african slaves when the natives died off to the point of there not being enough people to do the labor of extraction of resources.  colonialism and capitalism went hand in glove. everything beyond that is fruit from the poison tree and the same types of situations/relationships still exist just in different forms because the system of the world has been established. markets are influenced or forced. what i say by not being able to split hairs is how do you weigh anything good against 400 years of slavery? or how do you weigh anything good against genocide of native peoples? against what looks like will be the destruction of a livable planet?  

yes, capitalism gave (some of) us all kinds of technology and a high standard of living but also an opioid epidemic driven by profits to a handful of people. 

bill gates having billions of dollars to do "good works" comes at a price. everything has a cost. billionaires use philanthropy to wash their image. there's always more to the story. large forces at work change trajectories of other efforts in large organizations. one person like bill gates can change the focus of who knows what else was happening. i've posted a few behind the bastards episodes today so why not post another one.. it's a 2 parter. interesting stuff. 

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-the-ballad-of-bill-83715310/

i'm not trying to win an argument or something.. we don't need to go round and round about this. the history exists. the information is out there. 

sure, we can go back to a well regulated free market and try to accept our history as a nation and take on some kind of justice for that history and make reparations and/or give land back in places... apologize to 30 different countries for fucking with their governments and training their murder squads in School of the Americas.. i'm sure that'll go fine when we tell them sorry we helped get your democratically elected leader killed so the united fruit company could grow bananas w/o interference... 

iran getting fucked in 1952 via the brits and CIA (kermit roosevelt) so that british petroluem could have their oil fields... yeah.. i think we apologized for that one a  while back. 

capitalism yay! obviously crimes and shitty people and genocide and massacres and greed etc all existed before what we know as capitalism existed.. but all these things happen still to further capitalism. it's just the way it is. 

communism has largely sucked as well so.. idk.. maybe somewhere in the middle would be best and yeah.. the west has a bill to pay for colonialism and shit and has an opportunity (bringing us back on topic) to make up for the past a tiny bit by doing a big ol' climate justice endeavor in the face of eco-collapse.. but doubt it'll happen.. because capitalism. 

[may be rude]

7 minutes ago, ignatius said:

i guess i'm not expressing myself well enough. america was built on white supremacy and slavery. the "new world" was built on white supremacy and slavery. spanish in the americas imported african slaves when the natives died off to the point of there not being enough people to do the labor of extraction of resources.  colonialism and capitalism went hand in glove. everything beyond that is fruit from the poison tree and the same types of situations/relationships still exist just in different forms because the system of the world has been established. markets are influenced or forced. what i say by not being able to split hairs is how do you weigh anything good against 400 years of slavery? or how do you weigh anything good against genocide of native peoples? against what looks like will be the destruction of a livable planet?  

i just don't view that stuff as capitalism. all those things can happen outside of capitalism.

you say colonialism goes hand in hand with capitalism but colonialism has occurred without capitalism. 

 

16 minutes ago, ignatius said:

iran getting fucked in 1952 via the brits and CIA (kermit roosevelt) so that british petroluem could have their oil fields... yeah.. i think we apologized for that one a  while back. 

i need to look into that.

 

i think a lot of the problems in the US are the result of oil money in politics. if i were to point to one thing it would be that, not capitalism. get some sanity to congress consistently and we'll pass a lot of good legislation. 

[ignatius]

14 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

you say colonialism goes hand in hand with capitalism but colonialism has occurred without capitalism.

generally it was about making $$$$. sometimes wrapped in glory or whatever romantic notion etc but extracting wealth and resources was key. sometimes those resources were human beings. it may not look like the capitalism of today but it was capitalism. 

 

15 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

i need to look into that.

this book is sort of the bible on that whole deal. i haven't read the new version which adds an essay warning against attacking iran. 

https://www.powells.com/book/all-the-shahs-men-an-american-coup-the-roots-of-middle-east-terror-9780470185490

 

Quote

 

Synopsis

With a thrilling narrative that sheds much light on recent events, this national bestseller brings to life the 1953 CIA coup in Iran that ousted the country’s elected prime minister, ushered in a quarter-century of brutal rule under the Shah, and stimulated the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Selected as one of the best books of the year by the Washington Post and The Economist, it now features a new preface by the author on the folly of attacking Iran.

 

 

15 minutes ago, trying to be less rude said:

i think a lot of the problems in the US are the result of oil money in politics. if i were to point to one thing it would be that, not capitalism. get some sanity to congress consistently and we'll pass a lot of good legislation. 

i'm not so optimistic. getting the money out is only a part of the problem. we're not in a representative democracy. it's not just oil money or energy money. billionaires shouldn't exist. they have agendas and they're buying elections, changing culture, changing educational institutions and indoctrinating people. even so i don't think our elected officials are really going to fix things or "save us".  voting is largely about harm reduction for me. who will do the least harm. the system bends towards fascism not equity or climate justice or any kind of reality check on american history with justice and reparations or anything that approaches fixing all the unregulated disasters in the economy and environment. 

i don't think electoral politics are going to get it done and we're better off planning for the worst and developing mutual aid networks and creating community where we can. 

in the meantime check out my bandcamp.  

[brian trageskin]

[Satans Little Helper]

13 hours ago, milkface said:

Okay but nobody is above ideology. Any one who believes in something adheres to an ideology. People (especially centrists) like to think they're special or "neither left nor right" or "above politics" but everybody falls inside a category somewhere.

Ideology is a fast road to deny facts and stick to some theoretical fantasy, as far as I'm concerned. And that's fundamentally different to being left, right or centrist, if you will. If you're right, left or centrist you can still look at the facts and make different choices according to political colour. Ideology is about having a set in stone view on what is good and what is wrong. Regardless of facts, context and whatnot. It's a political religion. 

Saying nobody is above ideology, to me, is like saying everyone is religious in some way. To which I can only say I disagree.

[brian trageskin]

1 hour ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Ideology is a fast road to deny facts and stick to some theoretical fantasy, as far as I'm concerned. And that's fundamentally different to being left, right or centrist, if you will. If you're right, left or centrist you can still look at the facts and make different choices according to political colour. Ideology is about having a set in stone view on what is good and what is wrong. Regardless of facts, context and whatnot. It's a political religion. 

Saying nobody is above ideology, to me, is like saying everyone is religious in some way. To which I can only say I disagree.

yeah that's what i was trying to say in my reply to milkface, i did a very poor job though lol. 

@milkface it's ok to adhere to ideas, as long as you're open to revise your opinion when faced with facts that contradict your interpretation - which is something that bigots are incapable of doing (hence why they're bigots in the first place). every one of us is a patchwork of ideas and values that keeps changing over time anyway. all this to say, looking at the world through the prism of an ideology is the worst way to form an opinion about anything imo. it's the exact opposite of critical thinking.

[zlemflolia]

22 hours ago, zero said:

yes Zeff, I discussed "about" you, because you push an agenda - promote communism any chance you get. therefore you have something you have to win in these discussions, and never give the other side a fair chance. this is not about me proving you wrong, because doing so means I have to get into a discussion as to why your beloved communism is "wrong"...and I'd rather slit my wrists than get into another argument about communism on watmm. 

why do you constantly assume you know what I'm thinking? that last line in the quote up there let's me know you think I'm an enemy. why? just because I don't support communism? therefore I'm automatically dumped into the pro-capitalism category? let me re-iterate for the 3rd or 4th time now in this thread - I am in agreement that a collectivist societal model makes a hell of a lot more sense than an individualist one. the more spread out and closed off we are to each other, does not lead to healthy lifestyles, nor mentalities. and it has totally fucked this planet's ecosystem. but are we able at a point in human existence to band together as tribes do and live out in the wilderness off the land, and stop all this never-ending construction? I don't think so. it's unrealistic. same with flipping the switch and making everything a Marxist, everything will work together perfectly, fairy land.

 

yes, capitalism led to climate change. cars, energy, production of goods. all these factors contributed. all so we humans could buy more shit, drive to and fro, work in tall office buildings, fly in airplanes all over the world. all the creature comforts like computers, internet, watch porn, whatever. all those things advertised to us on a constant basis. and this is all so those dudes who moved to the top of their respective corporate professions could get more of those almighty dollars. greed, right? well the flip side of that is that they created companies to give other regular folks a way to earn a living in this system that we were all born into. this capitalist system that was put in place long before you and I were born, and is intertwined with humanity at this point...and is not going to be easy one to untangle.

bottom line - there isn't going to be an easy answer to any of these massive questions affecting the planet. and presuming that changing everything over to communism will magically fix all this, is completely far-fetched.

 

okay what is your magical "other" political economy?  you say you oppose capitalism for something else, describe it

20 hours ago, zero said:

Zeff, dude, let me ask a very basic question. why do you continue to come to post shit like this on watmm? you consistently look at most everyone here as an antagonistic force toward whatever you hope to achieve. you lost your audience on here a long, long time ago. you are no longer viewed as someone who knows his shit. you are viewed as a comic book character... ranting and raving about all the pros of Marxism, like some fucking Jim Henson muppet. 

if you ever thought of promoting your bullshit communism plan to anyone on here, in hopes you would convince anyone that this is somehow the way, then you have failed. if you want to try and listen to some shit people have to say on here, and appreciate the fact that we are all different, all have our own thoughts on how we can achieve some form of unity, then by all means, start interacting with respect. until then, you are not to be taken seriously, and are in fact hurting your cause.

stop meta-discussing its embarasssing

22 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

capitalism is not just this though, it's also the arbitrary right to put a portion of the profit that was made on the back of your employees into your pocket. which is literally how capital is created, from what i understand. 

i'm not saying capitalism doesn't have its pros either. it seems to be the most efficient way human beans have found to create wealth, so far. maybe i just don't like the fact that it's so poorly regulated - which probably has nothing to do with capitalism per se. 

it does have to do with capitalism.  how do the bourgeois class propose we regulate it? coincidentally, with electoral democracy, which ALWAYS becomes dominated by the very bourgeoisie it's supposed to regulate.  so it does not regulate anything and becomes merely the violent arm of the bourgeoisie, as we got to see during the cold war and in domestic responses to trade unionists, communists, strikes, etc

[zlemflolia]

22 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

Yeah, that is basically how I see it. Regulation can exist in a capitalist system. Even socialism can exist in a capitalist system. They are not mutually exclusive. The socialism of Bernie Sanders would not end capitalism in America. Bernie's socialist America is still capitalist. It just has better social programs. Of course there are always multiple definitions to words, but one of the core, Elemental definitions of the word capitalism is the simple right of the individual to own a business

bernie sanders is a weak social democrat and even that was too much for the owning class to allow to win.  did you not see the campaign and watch it closely and see how the bourgeoisie actively prevented him from winning?

[zlemflolia]

21 hours ago, trying to be less rude said:

thanks for explaining but i don't see how capitalism requires exploiting populations.

have you looked into it?  by its nature capitalism creates a hoard of wealth in the back room, and who gets to watch it? not democratic bodies ran by the people.  by the private owners of the means of production

[ignatius]

@trying to be less rude i copy pasted a wapo article in the america thread. if you check it out.. you'll see the roots of one of the main struggles were burdened with. right wing fundamentalist think tanks pushing their thing and winning. they are embraced in many places including fundamentalist type universities etc. 

some of these people think we're in a "cold civil war". this is the headspace some powerful people are in.. and they're pushing this line of thought. 

 

[brian trageskin]

8 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

it does have to do with capitalism.  how do the bourgeois class propose we regulate it? coincidentally, with electoral democracy, which ALWAYS becomes dominated by the very bourgeoisie it's supposed to regulate.  so it does not regulate anything and becomes merely the violent arm of the bourgeoisie

well, i guess i mostly agree with you that the game is rigged, except i'm not convinced at this point that this can't be fixed by simply changing the voting system - which, from a marxist perspective, won't happen anytime soon because the "bourgeoisie" won't allow it, i guess? 

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, brian trageskin said:

well, i guess i mostly agree with you that the game is rigged, except i'm not convinced at this point that this can't be fixed by simply changing the voting system - which, from a marxist perspective, won't happen anytime soon because the "bourgeoisie" won't allow it, i guess? 

changing the system by which we vote to place people into positions of representative power within the bourgeois state?  those positions themselves are the problems: positions designed in such a way that they cannot take control of the means of production because of legal private property rights.  how do you build nation-wide industrial scale communal means of production capable of being eco-friendly, without the proletariat, the most numerous and productive class, seizing the means of production and using it for their own needs rather than using it for the needs of the owning class during wage labor? you really think the capitalists, maybe a word you prefer over "bourgeoisie", will let people vote for universal housing, education, transportation, etc.?  we need those things to be capable of hoping to avert the worse effects of climate change.  we're consuming way too much energy as a species and still somehow failing to meet the needs of the population.  what more is there to say about capitalism?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

 

[brian trageskin]

[zero]

12 hours ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

okay what is your magical "other" political economy?  you say you oppose capitalism for something else, describe it

I don't fucking know. none of us do. that's the point I'm making here. we can discuss theoretical scenarios and potentialities as to how to fix this broken "system" ad infinitum, but will any of them work and/or happen? nobody fucking knows. 

and that's why I had to get all "meta" and call you out on your tactics. because you do the same shit time after time. you don't stick to discussing the subject. you bring c-mmunism into the discussion, trotted out as this magical savior to all of life's problems. then you attack the other side for not agreeing with this. it's laughable. who's embarrassed? I'm not.

[Wunderbar]

@ilqx hermolia xpli Are you going to donate your brain to science once u die ?

Edited July 25, 2022 by Wunderbar

[milkface]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:26 PM, Satans Little Helper said:

Saying nobody is above ideology, to me, is like saying everyone is religious in some way. To which I can only say I disagree.

I feel that people align to ideologies without even knowing about it though, of course things aren't all black and white but political views tend to come in rigid varieties, like how conspiracy theorists always call people sheep, despite the fact they are all a community that believe the same thing. Your average joe in a western country will be a neoliberal, sometimes by accident if they don't care for politics, the general consensus is that (watered down): right wing economics with left wing social views is just normal. Even in left wing spaces in real life and online that I have seen, people can so easily be categorised into like 7 different groups. I see your point in the bit I have quoted but in the same way I feel like atheism or apatheism is still a religion/ world view as athiests I know almost all treat their atheism or lack of care for religion as a community in itself.

Ideologies remain rigid because they're like recipies, although you may not like the meal at the end they all kind of make sense because you will tend to align with a set of political views that you feel will benefit you and mixing and matching different views that aren't in an already existing ideology will probably end up in some kind of mess of contradictions.

I'm not good at explaining shit but what I mean is that saying you don't have an ideology is such an individualist thing to say. Anyone who believes anything believes the same thing as millions of others. Political views are a spectrum but the vast majority of people congregate together on points of this spectrum. Democracy wouldn't work if every single person disagreed. I feel a lack of something is still something.

Edited July 25, 2022 by milkface

[ignatius]

kids have permanent lung damage from air pollution. like smoking 20 cigarettes a day.  non-smoker 18 yr old kid w/lung cancer. 

[milkface]

On 7/24/2022 at 1:50 AM, trying to be less rude said:

Even socialism can exist in a capitalist system.

Social democracy (capitalism funded "progressive" social program based society) but not socialism lol. The state is a tool for one class to opress the other. Saying that socialism can exist under capitalism even though socialism requires the class antagonism to be flipped on it's head is simply wrong. Socialism isn't just social, it's economic too.

Edited July 25, 2022 by milkface

[Nebraska]

 

[auxien]

1 hour ago, Nebraska said:

 

hey, everybody: quit fuckin'

[zlemflolia]

population scaremongering is just eco-fascism in disguise.  first world people need to be transferred to third world carbon output standards of living

[brian trageskin]

4 hours ago, milkface said:

I see your point in the bit I have quoted but in the same way I feel like atheism or apatheism is still a religion/ world view as athiests I know almost all treat their atheism or lack of care for religion as a community in itself.

contrary to religion and ideology, atheists don't share a common belief, quite the opposite. they share an absence of belief - just to be clear, i'm only talking about this type of atheists (who are in the majority, as far as i know). just because there's an atheist community doesn't mean atheism is their religion or their ideology, lol. and it's not even a worldview. hashtag global warming.