@matrix That’s it exactly. Mostly race against race is being used, but also men against women.

All of it is to replace class warfare used in the past to institute Communism because in the West you can change your class.

Everything you’ve been told is a lie to turn you into a useful idiot for Totalitarianism, Communism, complete control of you by people with half your intelligence and no interest in your welfare as Big Government.

@matrix It was good until midway of the second pharagraph

@Mek101 Class as defined by wealth and status. I don’t mean to indicate the Kardashians could become classy at some point. @matrix

@matrix Class in the marxist is dictated by your relationship to the means of production: workers can live by only by selling their labour power, while owners own the means of production (or more generally tools to enrich themselfs) and are bought, by the freeish market to exploit the workers

@Mek101 What you said you disagreed with was, “in the West you can change your class.” I meant ‘in the West’ as before the new Marxism and even before its preceding Plutocracy. The real West.

You said you disagreed with midway of the second paragraph. @matrix

@matrix That was when the socialist movement was still dangerous to the owning class: to prevent a revolution they moderated themselfs, which allowed the creation of the western social democracies in the second half if the 20° century.

@epic @matrix
With time however, such opponent declined, and the owner class no longer had a reason to.moderate itself, and therefore it slowly dismantled the social state (Thatcher, Regan, privatisation of public institutions and infrastructure in italy, etc).
And with the decline of the social state, so declined upward social mobility for the lower classes, such that today is much harder to improve one's economic status fron a lower class than once was.

@Mek101 That seems the direct opposite of what we see or logic. Logically, you can’t add more social programs ad infinitum to combat socialism. Social programs run rampant are socialism.

I’m conservative. We don’t live in the world of textbooks. People need a couple of things, a social safety net and a hand up. To us, arguing Libertarianism vs. Marxism is ludicrous, they have such errors in logic and ignore reality in ludicrous ways.

An example of social safety net would be unemployment. You were living hand-to-mouth and lost your job. You should not be on such a razor’s edge that you lose everything and must start from the bottom again.

An example of a hand up would be, after a fair public school system to benefit society as a whole (hard enough), community college for a small, almost cosmetic but not quite, fee. Show a willingness and ability to work at it and learn and you get the chance to learn a good trade and perhaps earn scholarships to advance further.

An example of way too far for a social safety net is lifetime handouts, they just keep people down.

An example of way too overboard as a hand-up would be college for everyone. @matrix

@matrix Socialism always has been the workers owning the means of production. And regardless on the conservative opinion on the quantity of social programs: those were added to prevent the radicalization of the lower classes (why would you revolt and risk your skin if there's safety net?), and once the status quo was no longer threatened, they were rolled back

@Mek101 Your textbook definition of socialism is for the textbooks and esoteric discussions unrelated to the real world.

Currently, what’s called Democratic Socialism has nothing to do with democracy as witnessed by the recent election abominations.

Currently, what’s called Socialism is really Communism, the real one, not the textbook one. Again, we’re not talking about ideal people in ideal societies under ideal conditions.

Currently, what’s called Communism will manifest as Surveillance Capitalism, the Social Credit System of the CCP on steroids as the infiltration of technology into western society is almost wholesale.

Your textbook descriptions and definitions not only do not work in the real world, the terms don’t even apply to the real world as those textbook definitions.

Lastly, why people do things is not as important as the fact that they’re done and the effect they have. You cannot possibly know the motives of everyone involved in implemented the social programs I spoke of. Libraries were built by Carnegie so people wouldn’t begrudge him his wealth. Why is not as important as that they were, the effect they had, and that they’re a good idea. Again, real world with selfish, self-serving people in it, the entire reason the textbook definitions and systems don’t work as laid out in textbooks. @matrix

@Mek101 I get that no discussion is possible without words having meanings; words not having meaning is wokeism and meant only to destroy logical discussion.

What I am saying is you can’t go from the textbook definition of Socialism to what people currently mean by Democratic Socialism. You cannot change mid-stream from the agreed-upon definition to something or anything else. As such, the textbook definition is meaningless to most of today’s discussions.

I’m not saying you’ve engaged in such subterfuge. I am saying most flip the meaning mid-conversation and often mid-sentence nowadays without realizing they are, and that’s where most of the confusion comes from in discussion. @matrix

@matrix mfw I can't get insulin for my grandma since two women fucking destroyed the central bank/fiat currency

I would say that destroying capitalism starts with a better economic alternative. Sex is really not an alternative economic system, fun as it can be.
@matrix ugggggh i hate capitalism, quick somebody have sex with me NOW
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.