@LittleAlex Wait which of these fuckers represents international communism in this round?

@LittleAlex fun fact: if you combine their weath, you get about half the money that is blown on the US military each year.

i wonder if the military is taxed enough 🤔.

@sofia If 3 people have half of the spending of the government with the biggest military budget in the world I think it is no longer time to ask questions but to riot.

@LittleAlex and rioting then disributes the weath of billioniares and governments among the world population, right?

@sofia If the riots are successful it's called a revolution. In this case, yes.

@LittleAlex that's… not the typical outcome of a violent revolution…

@sofia Sometimes it works and that gives me hope. Doing nothing or waiting for those people to change by themself will definitely not work.

IMO 200 years ago French people made a revolution. Today French people are in the same global boat. Between we had Napoleon's empire, world war I & II etc etc
I think revolution is not a solution
People have to live another way. Nowadays, in occident at least, future is an individual responsibility : first choose to not follow those sociopaths fools, second create your own life with your neighbourhood

@LittleAlex i think i agree with @Ju_ civil war brings creates horrible incentives, namely being good at violence. but luckily improving society doesn't depend on violence or society collapsing. really, people just have to realize that the state, by it's parasitic nature, will be worse for them than the things they organize themselves on a voluntary basis. and the more the state gets pushed out of business, the bigger the incentive for others to abandon it.

@LittleAlex chances are, you aren't on board with anarchism. i can give you some pointers if you want. i think the case is very convincing. personally, i like the economic argument as you might imagine. but i think there's good historical, antropolicial and philosophical arguments as well…

and don't forget the crucial question: how can i know if i'm right?


@sofia @Ju_ In my 20s I considered myself an anarchist. I am still, perhaps. The problem I see is capitalism cannot be reformed and it is extremely strong. Someone will even make money on it's downfall. It is a self-sustaining system. Money equals power and those with one will have the other. They make the rules, they take care nothing will change and they will not give it up voluntary.
Maybe you find a niche but only as long as it does not thread the system. Then it becomes illegal.

There Is Always An Alternative
Ensure the knowledge is shared is a first step

@Ju_ @sofia I agree with that but there are some more factors: We don't have much time left. The planet is already fucked up bad enough. The longer it takes the bigger the problems will become, with capitalism as well as the environment.

@LittleAlex i think this is where anti-market bias can hurt the anti-authoritarian cause. people making money isn't the problem, and may just be sign of a mutually beneficial exchange. in order to be exploit, the exploiter has to take away choices. and taking away choices generates costs someone has to pay. in the case of bossist control of industry, that's workers, consumers and to some extent taxpayers. but they all could benefit from resisting and circumventing the exploitation.


@LittleAlex a lot of that is a cultural question: "should i _really_ ask the boss?". and again, the fewer people are compliant, the fewer people have to shoulder the full costs of expoitation, and the clearer the exploitation becomes for them.

and yeah, criminalisation of cooperation is an issue, but note that even the fairly widely accepted drug prohibition can't get rid of drug trade. and more criminalisation means more expensive police and higher demand for non-state public security.


@sofia @Ju_ This idea to escalate the inconsistency of the system is not new. In fact several groups, communist, libertarian, anarchists and even religious movements tried it and failed. Anarchism presupposes an understanding of necessity but I don't see a way to teach this understanding like that. The usual reaction is to try to fix capitalism.

@LittleAlex oh, i'm not suggesting to escalate the state. what i'm suggesting is "building the new within the old", gradualism, prefiguration and counter-economics. escalation is one possible reaction and it's the most worrying one. another option is states slowly becoming civilized: becoming more democratic, more peaceful and less monopolistic. and is some regards that definitely happened. but this wasn't achieved through faith and obedience towards the state, but quite the opposite.


@sofia @Ju_ True, but for a permanent change the foundation of the state has to be changed. As I wrote, capitalism cannot be fixed. It will always strive towards monopolies and concentration of wealth. For some time I thought it can be tamed long enough for people to evolve in their acting and thinking. That's wrong. People with power will buy politics and democracy. They will take care only cosmetic changes will be made but never towards a direct democracy. Niches you propose will be illegal.

Capitalism cannot be fixed but capitalism is not everywhere anytime
We have to build outside of capitalism, like do free software engineers

@Ju_ @sofia And I tell you capitalism will first try to take those niches over and if not successful will outlaw it. You have many examples like those local exchange circles (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_ex) If it becomes too successful it will become illegal with different explanation.

You are right, you highlight what we have to fight for, keep or rights to live we life those ways

@LittleAlex @sofia they aren't spending it though. They can't. It's just a number derived from some other numbers that people drive from their expectations.

They do have personal pockets deep enough to levitate above us, but that's still peanuts compared to actual government spending sprees with questionable efficacy.

@LittleAlex I don't think they need taxation at this point. They need to be seized immediatly. They are past excess, so they should be past kind taxation. If they had any moraly, they wouldn't have gotten to this point, imho.

@LittleAlex To me, billionaries are like, people waking everyday not saving billions of lifes they could have. They have power of emperors, and they do shit with it. Every single day.

How do they even live with themselves, I wonder.

@LittleAlex if the govt taxed them enough, would that lead toba space race between govts?

@LittleAlex What's wrong with billionares investing in space technology development?

@naruciakk , the source of their money is surplus-value.
Is it possible to extract this kind of money from private hands into public consumption funds?

I'm sorry, are you saying we should punish people for being financially successful or that we should force them to spend their wealth in a manner that you approve of? Can you clarify?

@LittleAlex I think what frustrates me most about this is the blatant hypocrisy. Rarely do I ever see anyone question how many tons of fuel are burned for some billionaire’s joyride. How many carbons are they putting into the atmosphere? Liberal shitstains want to take away my car and force me to drive a glorified electric golf cart with barely enough range to drive to a neighboring state. But their pet media keeps soaking their collective panties over these assholes.

@LittleAlex it's fine if they want to blast off into space but i don't think we're obligated to let them land again

pol adj 

@LittleAlex *queen melody* Is this a cyberpunk novell already? Or is it just real life?

@LittleAlex I have an urge to move to pleroma for the express reason of laugh-reacting this post xD

@LittleAlex OTOH when it was just governments we got to the moon and then couldn't be bothered to put anyone past low orbit after that.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community