Is noone else gonna point out the absurdity that if the guy had been 1 year older, legally speaking there would've been nothing wrong?
The problem here is the grooming (which I think it's worth noting that adults can be victims of as well), the abuse of power dynamics, and particularly in this case the exploitation of another's inexperience for personal gratification.
But the article instead focuses on how the kid was "affected" by the teacher's "criminal actions", but then essentially just describes the kinds of consequences caused by the social stigma of student-teacher relationships. But this also happens in university, where it also carries negative social consequences, but not legal ones.
My point is simply that the legal system is a flimsy caricature of morality/ethics, and in articles like these it really shows.
The deregulation march you're talking about is neoliberalism, and it hasn't just affected USA. And in a sense neoliberalism is capitalism's response to regulation.
It's not that regulation doesn't work per se, it's that the (political) hierarchy through which it functions is susceptible to being taken advantage of, and inevitably it will be (*has been) taken advantage of by the capitalist class to protect their economic hierarchy.
For democracy to truly represent the people it'd need to be federated from the ground up through free association. Large scale organisation and cooperation would be ephemeral, existing when/if the need arises and dissolving as soon as projects are concluded (or cancelled). But within the rigidity of the current system(s), where power is consolidated at the 'top' through processes we're lead to believe are necessary for 'order' (when their real purpose is of course control), horizontal forms of social organisation seem impossible (I like how Anark calls this - "hierarchical realism").
Can we please stop pretending "regulation" is all that effective. It's been tried, and has resulted in corrupt bureaucracy or given way to neoliberalism (and corporate bureaucracy).
What we need is a radically different system where the power truly is in the hands of the people, and not just nominally like in representative democracy (and which is completely lacking anyways in most workplaces). And what this requires is the construction of fundamentally different modes of production and human interrelation that will not resemble what we've got now, neither economically nor politically nor socially. Regulating capitalism won't get us there.
Personally though I'm sceptical that money can be without hierarchy, or that the distinction between necessities and luxuries is all that meaningful, since it's all very relative
Extreme capitalism stifles and suffocates innovation and preservation.
It's an inherent contradiction of capitalist competition. Somehow everyone is supposed to be competitive but noone is supposed to win for capitalism to "work". Otherwise it's considered a monopoly and "anti-competitive".
Well, you're not using the typical meaning of the word.
Communism is really just a "stateless, moneyless, classless society", built on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". "Egalitarian" gets thrown around too but is considered inadequate by some for often meaning an equality of sorts between classes rather than the abolition of class.
"Commie" is just a derogatory word for "communist". The distinction you're making isn't really meaningful.
Stalin and Mao were Marxist-Leninists. Perhaps they truly believed that a "vanguard" party controlling a totalitarian "socialist" state was the best way to reach communism. History of course proved them wrong - the way that they structured their states and economies unsurprisingly resulted in state capitalism.
Idk enough about Orban but he strikes me to be the same as Putin, a totalitarian capitalist.
Robaque @ Robaque @feddit.it Posts 4Comments 207Joined 2 yr. ago
Such is class war in the 21st century