turquoise

i am not going to accept @gneiss.name slander

thumbnail of youtube video. Hermann Goring with "to hang" written over his eyes," red background

Fantasies of Nuremberg

On justice, punishment, and the Earth crying out for vengeance. youtu.be/n9Ay5tzHIBU

⏳Final week to sign up to the Green Party.

🗳️ Vote for Bold Leadership on August 1st.

yes, we should be tactically voting for green rather than labour. no one is going to vote for them come the next election, so "tactically" voting for them is no tactic at all

when the grand new world order plan is just.... the lamest possible corruption and sexual harassment scandal by another old white guy

i gave multiple other examples earlier for who would count, bill clinton was just the example i gave because he endorsed cuomo

what does this have to do with what i said lol

a dem who is a "leader" (senator etc.) is not the same as a leader of the dems

all im saying is that the dem rank and file is not the same as the dem leadership. im happy there's dems coming out in support of mamdani but there is significant difference when some senator endorses him vs bill clinton endorsing him (not that I'd want that but it's just an example)

that's not dem leadership though, which is ppl like hakeem and chuck or even like nancy or biden or kamala (considering bill clinton came out to endorse cuomo, this doesn't seem far fetched)

oh really? outside of nyc?

who names their child that

democrat voters vs democrat leadership

zack is absolutely right and it's the only way to get people motivated to do anything, you cannot ignore the anger

“We Have an Obligation to Ensure That Justice Is Not Defined by the Borders of Our District” Zohran Mamdani is one of five new democratic socialists that just joined the New York State Legislature. We spoke to him about housing justice, taxing the rich, and why it’s crucial for elected offici...

jacobin.com/2021/02/zohr...

read his first response. DSA is the only nominally socialist organisation in the US with any power, so running with them makes sense. he would not balk at being called socialist because he calls himself that, so why should you?

i am not confused; he is a democratic socialist, ideologically. he may govern as a social democrat (because there is only so much you can do when the country you are governing in is capitalist) but he absolutely is ideologically a socialist

during the campaign yes because again i think he's trying to get it confused with "social democrat" which is easier to swallow, but he does consider himself a socialist

i think that you find the word socialist scary

right, but mamdani calls HIMSELF a socialist whereas Trump doesn't. im no friend of the msm but it feels like a bit of a false equivalence here

just because he can't govern as one doesn't mean he isn't ideologically a socialist, in my opinion he calls himself a democratic socialist because it's easy enough to conflate with "social democrat", but again there aren't any meaningful differences between socialist and dem socialist anyways

it's a pointless distinction. we could discuss it but it means nothing because ultimately Mamdani is comfortable with being called a socialist and you aren't comfortable agreeing with someone who is

hardly

he is a self admitted socialist though

mamdani*

also what exactly do you mean the conflict is gonna be? im not sure i understand

also i dont intend to defend planned economies totally, it's just a concept I'm open to. this just started with me trying to illustrate that a planned economy is not synonymous with socialism lol

the market is a force that rewards the victor and punished the loser, and turns everything into a zero sum game, where the winners take from the losers. there is obviously a factor of general growth giving to everyone, but i think as regulation weakens, markets trend towards being zero sum

i think being afraid of even trying because of past failures is silly when the factors that caused those failures are not directly tied to what a planned economy is and what it tries to do. it is not inherent to planned economies; maybe it was to ones of the past, but think big my friend

using a heavier hand than needed possibly due to the pretty unstable state of the world + yugo itself). ideally a planned economy would be a) democratic, b) optimised via technology and c) responsive, much like a market is. it's hard to plan a whole economy when you're doing it with pen and paper

them to influence things in such a way to make those monopolies more likely. you talked about not being able to own your own business under a planned economy but that isn't even a necessity lol, again in yugoslavia, at least policy wise, people did own their own businesses (but tito ended up

implying (or even outright stating) that markets alone incentivise innovation and competitiveness ignores the true reality of markets; they tend towards monopoly and require a heavy, heavy hand to control, and even then the capital owners have disproportionate power over policy, which allows