Oh, TIL - thanks!

Help me, which term is racist?

You know there is a difference between wise people being listened to because of experience or just because it’s been smart and suggesting rules everyone then agrees on and a feudal lord or class thereof that are exploiting a poorer majority with threats of violence and living a lavish lifestyle. There are still existing tribes in Asia or Amazonas that don’t even have words for mine and yours because the concept of owning is so foreign to them. Everything is shared. To say that they are being ruled comparably to medieval and modern systems just doesn’t make sense.

And what does that have to do with this case?

I like a quote from the German left party. Said: “Well a true democratic communism hasn’t really had the chance to prove itself yet” - which got me to think. Maybe the democratic majority just doesn’t want communism. Now why is that? I think because almost all the opinions and information they are being barraged with are coming from capitalist owned news or because most people need to have this illusion that their work or whatever they are doing will eventually make them be better off than their neighbors.

Wow. You really think there’s going to be another election?

Is there a European Android-Alternative?

Bin bei Leuten, die hauptsächlich gegen etwas sprechen immer neugierig, wofür sie denn alternativ wären.

Ich hatte den Mietendeckel z.B nicht als primäre Maßnahme zur Schaffung neuer Wohnungen verstanden sondern gegen die kranke Spekulation auf dem Immobilienmarkt, die zu Leerstand und exponentiell steigenden Immobilienpreisen führt (unter anderem - das Thema ist natürlich etwas komplexer als das)

Wo wurden Mietendeckel in der Praxis denn als kontraproduktiv bewiesen ?

Welche anderen sozialen Forderungen siehst du als billigen Populismus?

Preisaufsicht und Entfall der Mehrwertsteuer auf Grundnahrungsmittel klingen nicht nur umsetzbar sondern auch vernünftig (Nach und während der Coronakreise macht der LEH Rekordgewinne, die Spritpreisbremse stecken sich die Ölkonzerne in die Tasche).

Subventionierung der öffentlichen Verkehrsmittel klingt mal nach sinnvollem Klimaschutz, der den sozial schwächeren auch nutzt, statt zu belasten.

Ich sehe da viele gute Ideen neben natürlich auch utopischen Vorstellungen. Auch das lese ich aber in wofür wie allen Parteiprogrammen.

Was möchtest du mit deinem Post eigentlich erreichen?

Wie du schon sagst, sind die Linke sehr weit weg von einer Regierungsbeteiligung (In der sie in einem Koalitionsvertrag ja sowieso solche Positionen nicht durchbekommen würden). Ich halte es allerdings für wichtig die Linke gerade wegen ihrer sozialpolitischen Positionen und Argumente in der Innenpolitik in den Bundestag zu wählen. Deutlich lieber als z.B die FDP.

Wundert mich einfach, dass so plötzlich nachdem die Linke in den Umfragewerten etwas gestiegen ist, so stark vor der bösen Linken hier gewarnt wird.

push already came to shove, and nobody fought. I don’t have much hope American Opposition to do anything.

Der Wahl-O-Mat wird von den Wahlprogrammen der Parteien gespeist (Also 80% bullshit), somit also höchstens gut für einen ersten Überblick oder für Parteien, die bisher noch nicht im Bundestag waren.

Spannend ist der neue Real-o-mat, der für die Parteien im Bundestag das tatsächliche Abstimmungsverhalten bewertet. Lohnt sich, dort mal reinzuschauen.

Oh, did his administration stop supplying weapons to Israel?

China has the 2nd most billionaires in the world and they are tied to “state owned companies”. And you try to tell me it’s a socialist country. Billionaires should not exist in a socialist country. If the economic gains of labour land in the hands of a few billionaires, this makes them bourgeoisie. Even though they claim to be socialist. But you seem to be as blinded by their propaganda as you claim the western people to be of capitalist propaganda because you can’t seem to grasp what’s wrong with these so called socialist countries.

Funny how you just disregard the information without actually going into it at all.

Coming off as someone blindly following another form of oppression by a bourgeoise elite claiming to be proletarian.

I was hoping for some actual insights.

What are you trying to say with this graph? That distribution of wealth is better when it is distributed amongst less than 1% of the population of they call themselves proletarian? Or that it is somehow better if standard of living goes down for everyone just because the then nonexistent ressources are shared equally?

In a perfect world a whole cake is shared equally by all 8 people. But if you smash half the cake, give a quarter to one person and the remaining quarter to the remaining 7 it is not better than 2 ppl having half a cake and letting the other 6 have the other half. Maybe not the best example but I hope you get my point.

If not having equal but good standard of living, what is it we are strivong for?

I suggest this link as a good read. Because I think just strictly defending the existing socialist countries is actually hindering progress towards a both fair and high quality of life society.

https://queer-bolshevik.medium.com/the-aes-doctrine-wrong-then-wrong-now-a8666de371da

Have you ever visited any of the AES Countries? They have a few rich and powerful families running everything and sucking up to daddy china. I have visited Laos and Vietnam and talked to the working people. They are suffering, barely making ends meed and are fed up with the people in power taking everything for themselves and living in luxury. And if they talk too much about it they get “visitors”. These people in power over there are not working class. There is also absolutely no basic healthcare. If you get sick you die. I am sorry but for me a socialist country does not have an elite living on luxury and it doesn’t have people dying of poverty and lack of healthcare.

I agree with a lot you are saying. No state can stay stable without some form of control and censorship as soon as it starts threatening the stability of the system. Capitalism does this as well. And they have a very effective propaganda machine.

I feel like capitalist propaganda is so effective because it resonates so well with the basic human instincts and the part of humans that wants to be better than others and is greedy. The monkey brain is competitive and hierarchical. Socialism requires a level of empathy and intelligence a lot of people don’t have. They not only reject it because of media but also because they wanna climb that social ladder. No fun, if it doesn’t exist.

The leaders of most socialist countries though, seemed to not stop at the anti socialist critics. Even other socialist voices that they didn’t agree with got silenced (Mao, Pol Port, Xi Jing Ping making all his ministers disappear).

Also please don’t misunderstand me. I am not arguing against socialism. I am trying to find a form of socialist society that relies on as few authority and violence as possible. I always wondered why the socialist countries struggle so much with keeping their people in, while most refugees try to get into the capitalist societies.

In theory yes. In reality all socialist systems had surprisingly few changes of leadership after one guy rose to power of the “socialist” movement or party. And they don’t really seem to trust their citizens to be socialist without a lot of fear, censorship, spying, silencing critics…

It’s almost as if the majority of humans reject socialism. Which is weird but true.

Honestly I think China will be the only country actually reaching their carbon emissionsl targets set in Paris. All these preaching democratic nations are failing theirs year after year.

How do you plan to take power? And if you manage, how do you plan to stay in power long enough? The average voter is a moron being fed propaganda for years. You will not take power democratically. And you will not stay in power democratically.