Not_mikey @ Not_mikey @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

5

Comments

147

Joined

6 mo. ago

Cool now that we're not optimizing for the cheapest goods and services possible can we raise the minimum wage

Trump: ....

Pass the pro act and expand unions to raise wages

Trump: .....

Raise working and regulatory standards

Trump: ....

Stop using the cheapest most environmentally harmful energy sources

Trump: ....

The fbi is always monitoring far left spaces. There's an old joke that half the people at any given communist party usa meeting are cops/fbi.

So if they lose "the bad guys" (russia, china and the u.s.) are going to team up and take over Europe? Does Russia get it all or do they split it with the americans? Does China get a slice?

Japan didn't team up with Germany because of China, they did it in opposition to the soviets, Germany didn't care about China, because it's on the opposite side of the world. Just like China doesn't care about Europe and ukraine. Yeah they'll sell russia weapons and tech but they aren't giving it out as aid.

The u.s. is not allied with russia and doesn't hate nato as much as them. One wing of the political class wants more defense spending from allied countries. Trump hasn't shown any intention of leaving nato, much less switching sides and joining russia against them. Even if he wanted to he'd be bumping against a defense establishment that has made nato the core of there strategy for the past half century.

The u.s. is still sending weapons to ukraine as military aid. Even if trump got his way we'd still be sending weapons, it's just the Ukrainians would have to buy them, putting the u.s. in the same position to ukraine as China is to russia. So if China is supporting russia in that case, then the u.s. would still be supporting ukraine.

Peace between the great powers is the norm in the nuclear age. This combined with globalization makes it so going to war between powers more trouble than it's worth.

You seem to view international politics as an axis of evil bad guys and an alliance of good guys keeping them in check. That was really only somewhat the case in ww2. International politics is about a set of powers, each with there own spheres of influence and varied and at times conflicting interests trying to pursue those interests.

The u.s. has no interest in helping russia conquer europe, neither does China. Both have a major interest in keeping russia weak and keeping the European economy functional as they are a large trading partner.

So you think sending people back into a warzone they tried to escape because they didnt want to go to war is a bad thing, so then the policy of not allowing men to leave is also bad, or that even desertion is valid. If you think this comparison is invalid or that the people who escaped early have more of a right to leave then the people trying to escape now please explain. Otherwise by your own definition what ukraine is doing is cruel, it can be cruelty in support of a grand cause, but it's still cruel.

I agree conscription is the reason ukraine is able to stay in this war. I disagree that them losing will mean russia will march on nato and cause ww3. Even if we take nukes out of the picture, Russia can barely beat the literal poorest country in Europe, how are they going to take on the rest of europe. Even if the u.s. doesnt help, the EU has 3 times the population of russia and 10 times the gdp. Putin knows this and isn't going to try, he may go for the Baltics in 10 years after his military has recovered, but there's no way he's making it passed the bug river in the forseeable future.

Either way back to the main point, if you think the stakes are so high and that Ukrainian bodies are the only thing defending civilization from barbarism, wouldn't you want more of those bodies in Ukraine? Wouldn't this order help the cause of preventing ww3?

Did you read my reply?

fuck russia for starting this war

How am I blaming ukraine?

I'm pointing out a contradiction in your support for refugee rights and mandatory conscription. Instead of addressing that contradiction you seem to want to focus on russia and pretend I'm an fsb plant.

I'm not defending russia here, putin is horrible and without him none of this would happen. Now that we agree on that explain to me how your in favor of mandatory conscription and refugee rights.

The khmer rouge wouldnt have happened without u.s. meddling and bombing in Cambodia, that doesnt mean we cant criticize the horrible things they did in retaliation. Just because there's a greater cause of something doesn't mean we can't debate the decisions made by those effected.

If zelensky comes out tomorrow and says this is a great move by trump because ukraine needs the manpower are you going to change your position?

I wonder what the Ukrainian people want.

Well some want to leave, but the government isn't allowing them to.

Why is it evil for the u.s. to send people back to a war zone but not for ukraine to keep people in a war zone?

And before you go for the whataboutism I know russia is doing it too and that's fucked up. Fuck russia for starting this war but that doesn't resolve the contradiction of supporting refugee rights and mandatory conscription.

And 0.7m people working. Ukraine is suffering a labor shortage because of the war. Unless these are old or infirm people, people tend to produce more with there labor then they take out in government services. This is one of the reasons immigration is a good thing and why this is a bad move for the u.s.

Going to steel man this since theres obviously no one on here answering this question seriously. Not a republican and don't agree with all this, just imagining what my republican dad would say about this:

For ukraine and Europe, we have no interest in protecting them besides sentimental attachments. Ukraine is not our problem, it's Europe's and if they want to dump money into a lost cause by all means go ahead, but leave the u.s. out of it unless your going to compensate us for it. The u.s. isn't threatened by Russia, we have an ocean, the world's largest navy and nukes to protect us. The larger threat is China and we should be focusing on them, not russia which can barely invade it's neighbor, much less march across Europe and the atlantic. Europe can handle its own problems.

For Canada and Mexico and tarriffs in general. We need to bring manufacturing back to America and revitalize the rust belt. We can't do that if companies find it more profitable to go over seas and pay people pennies when they'd have to pay Americans much more. The only way to get them to come back is to make it too expensive to import things.

This is all about putting America first. For decades America has been spending billions to protect Europe and has been sending billions of dollars over seas to build factories owhile factory after factory closes here in the u.s. We need to stop all of that and spend our money in America for Americans.

Feel free to use this comment as a punching bag, I don't care, just trying to give OP an actual answer if this was a legitimate question and not some rhetorical question seeking affirmation on how dumb the Republicans are. They are, don't get me wrong, but just say so and don't dress it up in questions like this.

Oh no... please don't, that will erode the property claims of the vast hoards the ruling class possess, that would be terrible...

You can't just take billionaires money because there supporting a horrible cause, next thing you know every morally bankrupt oligarch will be financially bankrupt, we can't have that.

There was a poll a few days before the famous march on Washington that culminated in King's "I have a dream speech" and two thirds of Americans thought the march was unamerican.

America has always hated uppity protesters demanding rights.

So is the "common hold " they talk about more like the condominiums we have here in the u.s. eg. You own your unit, and you pay an HOA or some organization for building maintenance and amenities?

Ctr +f "cybertruck": 0 results

Good job everybody!

Depends on where the burden is being placed. If it's adding more hoops for everyday people to jump through to get what they need, no. If it's adding more hoops for large organizations and corporations who can hire people for compliance, yes. If it's just hiring more people on the government side to analyze the existing data, but the forms and processes stay the same on the other end, sure.

I agree, displaced person's should get a vote. Ideally people in the occupied territories would too, but thats just not feasible. Just like how in 1864 the blacks in the south shouldve gotten to vote since they were all now freed under the emancipation proclamation, and they had the most at stake in the conflict, but the confederacy was never going to allow that. That doesn't mean the north shouldn't have had an election because not everyone could participate.

The people in the occupied territories may not be as pro-ukrainian as you might think though, a lot of them probably just want the war to be over and for the bombs to stop falling on them. Hell putin might allow an election if he knows they'll vote for peace.

Why, the U.S. has had many elections during wars, many of which become a referendum on whether to stay in the war. The 1864 election had candidates openly advocating for ending the civil war. The 1968 election had multiple nominees on the democratic side advocating to end the Vietnam War, and the winner Nixon was campaigning on ending the war "with honor.

The people should have a say in whether there country continues a war, to say otherwise is undemocratic and patronizing.

This should be a referendum. Zelensky has staked his reputation and legitimacy on winning this war. If the question is independence and more war or become a colony of Russia then a lot would be on board. If the question is become a colony of Russia and peace or become a colony of America and more war, I think that's a tougher call to make.

What a different world we would be in if Florida didn't fuck up in 2000 jeb bush and the Supreme Court didn't steal the election in 2000

Most embarrassing, wtf, have you read american history past the first grade. Hell in the first chapter you'll find ethnic cleansing of natives and the three fifths compromise. This isn't even the first time we've done a shakedown like this. Half of Latin America got this treatment in the 19th century, albeit less crude and poorly executed.

Even on the regurgitating authoritarian propaganda front, in the 70s we were running diplomatic cover for fucking Polpot and playing down the genocide because we wanted to get back at Vietnam and cozy up to China.

Ape hierarchies, at least within the troops, are mostly about mating not resource distribution. It's not like the alpha male gets first pick of the fruit and all the other chimps wait until he's done and then go in hierarchical order, they just disperse and grab what they can.

If you want to go down an essentialist path most pre-agricultural societies were anarchic. There may be a chief but they "ruled" at the discretion of the tribe. The chief, or anyone really, couldn't hoard resources because

1. they couldnt monopolize violence and coerce people since there's no specialization in anything much less violence so violence becomes a numbers game.
2. There's only so much you can carry. Pre agricultural tribes were nomadic mostly and when the tribe moves camps you have to carry everything with you. So even if you were able to hoard enough food that won't rot you won't be able to carry it to the next camp.
3. Because of the above, wealth isn't really a thing. This forces cooperation because without wealth, the individual can't protect themselves from hardship. Selfish individualism only works if you're able to build up some wealth to act as a buffer for leaner times. If you don't have that wealth then you're reliant on your social connections so you tend to cooperate and redistribute because it's in your best interest to stay in good standing with the group so they will help you in harsher times.

All this changes with agriculture and the invention of wealth, first in grain then in gold and then stocks etc. Now your dependence on society is directly porportional to how much wealth you have, to the point where really rich people can fuck off to a cabin or island and never work or contribute to society ever again.

Violence specialization also becomes more or less a thing, increasing up until the invention of firearms at which point it becomes more of a numbers game and the hierarchies lessen.

All of this is to say that hierarchy is not natural, but the result of the ability to accumulate wealth combined with violence specialization and monopolization. If we get rid of those two concepts then anarchy may take over, how we do that in the modern world is another question.

It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.

You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.