@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?

@swashberry @LittleAlex they should be thrown in a fire and their wealth redistributed

hope that helps

@LittleAlex @whalefall @swashberry I don't see any murder, just long deferred justice. A person who has amassed a billion dollars has already committed an act of violence against every other person on the planet.

@robotcarsley @whalefall @swashberry Yes, they have but executing people for whatever reason is still murder and wrong.

Did you know Mao didn't kill the last emperor? He lived a long and productive life as a gardener. That's the way to go! (No, not Maos way, but not killing you former enemies)

@LittleAlex @whalefall @swashberry leaving your enemies alive is a luxury, and if you can afford it, it's nice. The emperor wasn't even enough of a threat to be called Mao's enemy though, he was already irrelevant and toothless. You'll notice that the enemies with the power to stop the revolution, such as the landlords as a class, did not receive the same treatment.

@wigglytuffitout @whalefall Also in case of the Nazis it was wrong. Murdering people to show murdering people is wrong is absurd. You have to be better than those you fight, especially on the level of morality.

@LittleAlex @whalefall ...so you are going to seriously argue that it is equally immoral to do the holocaust, or to use capital punishment against those who eagerly and avidly perpetuated a genocide?

do you not understand that equating one nazi death to, let's see, 17 million of undesirables, is in fact playing directly into nazi rhetoric?

especially when you end up saying that a punishment is just as evil as the crime?

what you are doing here is coming in hot solely in defense of evil in this situation.

but let me guess: you also agree with takes like "the jewish people should have just laid down and died faster as to shame the nazis uwu", since you're already on the "one widdle nazi losing his life is so sad 🥺🥺🥺🥺 so twagic 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 never mind he did a holocaust 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 so sad 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 just as sad as holocaust!!!!!!!!!11" train.

this is honestly disgusting.

and given that you post in german a hell of a lot more than my american ass?

the fact that you are equating these two as equal sins?

the fact that you are rushing in to be all "noooooooooo no bully nazis 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 no touchy pweshush baby!!!!!!!"?

you should be ashamed.

if you're so supposedly moral you end up arguing in favor of the nazis and radically downplaying the deaths of millions...

everyone knows exactly what those morals are.

and those morals are you frantically sucking off nazis while telling everyone the nazis disapprove of that they don't matter. in fact, it takes 17 million of them to equal one nazi life, because of the amazing arithmetic you're bringing to the table. after all, the nazi life ended for doing the holocaust is equal to the 17 million dead in the holocaust itself.

the fact that an american is having to remind you HOLOCAUST BAD. NAZIS NO GOOD. should leave you deeply ashamed, given how you cannot swing a dead cat in the middle of berlin without hitting at least three places on the landscape directly influenced by how nazis are, in fact, bad. the fact that my american ass is having to tell you this should leave you riddled with guilt at how badly you missed the point.

and how fucking eager you are to repeat those mistakes.

it shows exactly how much you care about life: not very much at all, as long as the person is of non-aryan lineage.

you have also ended up a sterling example of why society cannot progress without bloodshed: because otherwise there are jackasses like you hanging around, wringing your hands about the poor, poor widdle nazis and their dear widdle heads 🥺 and giving more of a shit about the nazis instead of their victims, marginalizing and silencing the masses so that you can fawn over the monstrous few.

do you think society is going to make any sort of progress when you're around cooing and gushing over the nazis as precious babies? do you think society will get rid of its systemic problems when you're going to bat for the oppressors with such vim and vigor?

you actively support a society full of those who would murder me, instead of listening to me and those like you saying "no, they will kill me, they are dangerous". you are asking me to line up and hop in the gas chambers because i am only worth 1/17000000th of a nazi to you in your fucking abysmal logic, by siding with my oppressors.

that shows the world all that they need to know about your supposed morality.

absolutely disgusting.

i would call you a nazi, but quite frankly, i think you are more pathetic than that. the nazis at least tell you they're going to kill you. the liberal hand-wringing about the widdle baby nazis and their dear widdle heads getting hurted 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 that you're doing?

you're so much of a coward that you can't even admit to what you are defending, instead going for some milquetoast, "both sides are bad u guise", "nazis are people tooooooo" bullshit.

the nazis at least tell me they are going to kill me. you would pretend to be a friend right up until i get dragged off to a cozy little camp for the high crime of being disabled. at which point you would pathetically whine about how preventing them from killing me would be against your morals, because you might have to hurt the dear little darlings who want me dead.

fucking stunning.

and not in a good way.

if all you're going to do to contribute to a better world is refuse to defend the innocent, and instead heap adoration on the oppressors, the world cannot progress with you in it. you can either change your adherence to bullshit, or you can change the fact that the world has you in it. up to you.

until then, this - and you - are utterly disgusting, and entirely pathetic.

all of the support of the nazi regime without any of the backbone or honesty. gotta love the weak-willed "liberal" in his native habitat, with his mating call of DAE THINK BOTH SIDES EQUALLY BAD????, showing he thinks not a moment with his brain, but only with his swallowed neo-nazi propaganda.

@LittleAlex what's even more stunning here is that you are equating a legal punishment -

one where the accused were able to mount a defense, were able to trust in trial by law, were able to deliver arguments on their behalf, and were able to be judged by those weighing the arguments, and then were able to be given the dignity of a quick death of a broken neck after being treated well as prisoners of war -

to the rest of the deaths in the fucking holocaust.

before telling me that the murders are the same, please tell me where in these pictures the trials are? where are the defendants given a chance to plead their case? where is the rule of law and the possibility that they could argue to a court and be freed? where is the dignity of a quick death in the following pictures? where is the humane treatment of those captured until the sentenced is pronounced?

where is even the dignity to say that adults know what they are doing, and children do not, so that children should not be punished?

i want you to look at how the bodies piled up like cordwood are thin, malnourished, obviously from those who suffered for weeks if not months, and contrast it with the pictures of those killed after the nuremburg trials as part of their sentence. notice how they get laid out with dignity. notice how they are plump and well-nourished and died with dignity. notice how they are nicely dressed in their uniforms. now compare to the bodies here not even allowed clothes.

according to you, there is no difference.

i should not have to explain to you why this is bad.

or even why you saying that these things are equally bad is actively holding back a progressive society.

but if you knew why that was bad, you wouldn't be so eager to go to bad for the fucking nazis, by regurgitating the "both sides equally bad tho!!!!!!" rhetoric that they have directly fed you as propaganda, and that you have fallen for completely.

your supposed morality is once again disgusting.

and no, i'm not going to give you any content warnings. i wish only that i could find more gory pictures. because you are in denial about the horrors of what really happened as you are so easily dismissing them.

@wigglytuffitout @whalefall I never said it is equal because it is not. I said killing people for whatever reason is immoral and one should never fall to this level.

Many atrocities of the Nazis was legal by German law, by the way. Legal is not a measurement of right and wrong. Legal code is the manifestation of the will of the ruling people. The Nazis was convinced they do right. I see some similarities to supporters of the death penalty here.

@LittleAlex and once again you spectacularly fail to recognize that there is a difference between "a punishment as consequence for atrocities a person committed, as a just society sometimes flatly cannot include monsters who would seek to perpetuate cruelty against the innocent" and "killing an innocent".

and once again you fail to realize that this both sides are bad shit is a neo-nazi talking point, as is the handwringing about any form of violence being bad because you might hurt a poor widdle nazi.

you are equating a defense to an attack.

this only helps the attacker by making the defender "just as bad". it directly supports the attacker's logic of "but i was right to do so!". it serves the abuser's point of view, and the abuser's point of view only.

it's why the neo-nazis love pushing it so much.

because it means you won't fight to stop them when they decide to do more genocide.

again: this is fucking disgusting, and even more disgusting that my american ass has to tell you this.

if you're going to hold this sort of opinion, don't call yourself left-wing. you are saying "but they're also bad!", and serving only the abuser. even when you wring your hands and try to say it's a matter of justice and that's why you need to be neutral.

who do you think gets bolstered by this "neutrality"? who do you think you are supporting directly with it?

the oppressive systems and oppressors, or the oppressed?

pro tip: it's not the oppressed.

however, you have guzzled the proverbial koolaid here so hard that i'm pretty sure that not only are you demonstrating how you don't give a shit about defending the innocent here to an exceedingly obvious degree, but that you wouldn't get this concept even if i was screaming for you to help me with my next destination being a gas chamber, because you would be too scared to hurt a hair on the precious nazi guards' heads and therefore inaction is the only thing you can do. you probably wouldn't even see the logic if you were also being dragged there yourself, because what if your wiggling made the poor guard a little uncomfy? goodness gracious, you could give him a bruise! or a sprained wrist! how absolutely awful! since all violence equally bad, and freeing yourself might involve something like stealing his gun and shooting him (how barbaric!), nothing can be done!

guess you'll just have to let the oppressors get on with the killing because any defense would be just oh so very immoral!

so i'm going to leave you to it.

you aren't the first so-called leftist i will meet who will wring his hands more about the poor nazis that must be included in his perfect society, than the little ol' folks the nazis want to murder, like my crippledy ass. and you sure as hell won't be the last.

perhaps if you were actually interested in a just society, you would consider how to fix that and what roads that absolutism has led you down. you would perhaps examine what side you are supporting with such takes, and what side you are letting down, and if you actually want that to define your social justice, or even if it is serving the cause of social justice at all. but you've really dedicated yourself to this, so i expect the most i can hope to get is... maybe you'll keep this shit a bit more under wraps. or at least delay this spiral of bullshit logic for a bit so that maybe it'll be a few more months before you'll pull shit like turning to a family member and going "well i know your husband abuses you horribly, but you see, it's also morally wrong if you throw a punch or try to claw at him to get yourself out of his grip when he's choking you to death... i'm sorry i just can't support that sort of immoral atrocity as you scratching his face. it's a very important moral stand to me, and you never should have sunk to that level as to draw blood, you know."

you can go spout your neo-nazi bullshit far away from my eyes.

here's hoping the admins of your instance are slightly less cool with that than you are, mind you, or else i'll be happy to also spread the word that chaos.social has decided to be chaotic by harboring a concerted interest in coddling nazis away from any consequences.

@wigglytuffitout You don't have to kill someone to exclude him or her from society. Depending on the reason a mental institute or prison will do the job.

@LittleAlex @wigglytuffitout yeah sorry bud but you're caping for Nazis. I'm not comfortable with you interacting with my users anymore.

@whalefall @LittleAlex
Cool, so you'll be immediately donating your money to charity and then committing seppuku, yes? Bearing in mind that you currently live among the wealthiest and most privileged generations in the history of the world, where the poor live lives of higher quality than ancient kings.

@swashberry have you read "Wealth Distribution in the 21st century" by Gege Chisma? his writing really changed my mind about this stuff. i can give you a summary if you want

You can, if you want to. I can't guarantee I'll have anything meaningful to say, though. This exchange has reminded me why I normally try to avoid talking politics, especially online.

I've generally been unconvinced that wealth redistribution is anything other than treatment for a symptom of a bigger problem that goes unaddressed in such systems, but I'm not opposed to having that point argued.

@swashberry @ItsMorgan here i'll summarize since morgan doesnt feel up to it:

@LittleAlex i quite agree. the fonder of linux, bill gates, is free to utilize his earnings in whatever manner he chooses. so sayeth our prophetess Ayn...

@swashberry @LittleAlex never considered it like that, but now that you mention it, i think we should do both of those things. thanks!

@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

Sign in to participate in the conversation

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