401ks, IRAs, Pensions etc.

Oh you thought they were investing their own money? Hahahaha

Animals are not objects.

Removed by mod

In reference to how socialism will truly come about, Marx literally criticized the kind of thinking that dominates left wing thinking nowadays.

Removed by mod

No you can’t. It collapses on the weight of its own contradictions. Any imposition of socialism without the right material conditions is doomed.

Sometimes I wonder how many “Marxists” really have read Marx.

That was the idea but these federalists man, they keep giving power to the central government and then complain about dictatorship, autocracy and other centralized government problems.

This is 100% not the advice you are looking for, but if you don’t need the service to have a domain I would consider just using Tailscale. It’s pretty damn good.

There’s a little bit more nuance than that isn’t there? You can provide these things, but we still need to produce things right? Because we haven’t yet reached full automation. So the question is if we provide those things and a significant part of the population decide that they are happy with the minimum and thus they don’t want to work, and we start having massive labor shortages such that the goods needed to sustain the economy cannot be produced, what do we do? Well the only solution at that point is to make labor mandatory, and forced if the individual is noncompliant. Which is why the labor market as it exists is seen as the lesser evil. This is a bit of an oversimplification because I’m not looking to write an essay here but that covers the gist of why a liberal may oppose full on socialism.

For me, the imperative is achieving that automation. Only then is full socialism viable.

What happens when there is no consensus on an important decision and people split in half and one half tries to impose their will on the other? How is this mediated? And if they do not have authority what happens when someone doesn’t want to do what needs to be done? Who has the authority to punish coerce them?

And I have so many questions about security both domestic and foreign that I don’t even know where to start.

I do have these views. You can read all my comments, I’m pretty consistent on my stances and if I change them it’s because someone truly gave me reason to, with well justified arguments. I’m always open to changing my mind. The thing is i have evaluated my beliefs pretty well and the root is anti anthropocentric, so when your parting point is that humans are not special you tend to have friction with everyone because everyone’s views originate in human exceptionalism.

Also I find that like 99% of all political arguments are just tribalistic reactionary bs or emotionally charged, and I do not play that game.

Though I do enjoy debate, I’m not gonna lie.

Hegel is, once more, proven right.

Ah my western bias is showing! You are right.

Is that true though? I mean I just did a mental review of collapses that came to mind and not even the USSR resulted in mass deaths? I mean the mass deaths were for causes the led to the collapse of the USSR but the actual collapse was not what caused the deaths.

Unless you mean that the new order that takes the place of the one before is the one that causes mass casualties because that does seem to be the usual case. No one actually falls in line with the ideology that wants to dominate, which I guess is your greater point.

At what “seems to be your attempted etymological use” hahaha my guy I gave you the definition out of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Like all of your definitions were “this is what this means in American politics” and oh “this is what it meant in the 17th century”. But you failed to address how can a conservative be the same thing as a reactionary given that:

A) Conservatives exist outside of US politics currently and in the present day, and they hold conservative views, and call themselves conservatives yet do not hold regressive views

B) That conservatives exist right now inside the US, who call themselves conservatives, and they are disgusted by everything the Trump administration is doing and do not hold regressive views

But look my dude, you win bro. You got the updoots. You got the trophy. We can send a notification to the encyclopedia that their definition and article is sorely outdated and that they should change it.

You need to describe the organization of such a society: how do things get done. Who decides what gets done and how is it decided. How do you stop those humans who are smarter, and more charismatic from rallying a following and imposing their will? The natural state of humanity is hierarchical, now that doesn’t mean that because it’s natural it needs to stay that way but I am simply making the descriptive claim that without guardrails hierarchy will form.

I have thought about this a little though I admit to be ignorant about anarchic literature, Im basing myself mostly on the basic and most well known claims. But from what I know of the goals of the ideology, for me anarchism is only possible through the trans human project. Humans would transcend the genetical and physical differences that make us intrinsically different and therefore more capable than others. We would be truly equal, though not human in any sense of the word anymore. More like a program that can reach consensus without dissenting opinions causing rifts because we are in fact a one who also happens to be many if that makes sense? Like the Geth in Mass Effect. A hive mind.

George F. Will comes to mind for his recent article calling Trump a progressive (pejoratively):

https://archive.is/20250529025350/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/28/trump-progressivism-unconservative-republicans/

Wow you wrote all of that and still failed to leave American politics behind. But even within American politics still did not address what should be the label for people who fit the definition of conservative (gradual change) if conservative now means reactionary. And they absolutely need a label because they are actually the larger faction in American politics, as most people would say that they do not want radical change. Independents then? Are they liberals? Centrists? We need a name to give to this politically significant group.

But you really just want to win the argument.

Here you go you win 🏆🎉🥳

Outdated? So conservatives are only an American phenomenon? Because that’s the only way that conservative = GOP = reactionary. There are conservatives all over the world, and they are explicitly different from reactionaries and usually opposed to them.

That would also mean that the conservatives that exist in America either need a new name or don’t exist. But that’s not the case. They are more or less politically homeles, but many have remained in the GOP because they see it as the lesser evil (for whatever reasons, I’m not here to argue the merit of that belief) or have thrown their lot in with the democrats, but they still exist.