I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.
I disagree, I don't think people would resonate with that language as applied to other, 'good'/quiet billionaires like Gates, Buffet, or Page - in fact I think that's exactly the point of swapping terms because it sounds more specific to how those billionaires utilize their wealth and influence instead of the fact that they have it to begin with.
yea.... except he's just the end result of a far broader problem
This is exactly the concern with hand-wringing over semantics- the democrats aren't losing because they aren't being vocal enough about their opposition to Trump, they're losing because they're actively avoiding the root problem.
Pick another word for oligarchs if you want, so long as the attention is being drawn to the root problem of wealth inequality and the billionare class. Don't just abandon the issue because you're afraid it looks like you might be critiquing our economic model when that's absolutely what we're doing
Yea but opposing 'kings' isn't even close to the problem of 'oligarchs'
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she'd suggest 'billionaire' instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
A 'dictatorship of the proletariat' has elements of democracy, but it is explicitly not the same as a liberal democracy (nor is it really the same as a straight-out dictatorship). It's possible that some people prefer the Trotsky version of socialist states (one where multiple socialist parties might compete for power), but the ML single-party version is still very much within marxist theory.
The Chinese political system is democratic, just not in the same ways a western democracy might be. Western liberals seem to either not know (?) how the Chinese system works, or miss-understand what 'democracy' means as it pertains to Marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Either way, @explodicle@sh.itjust.works seems to be operating under a liberal-democratic understanding of democracy, but that's really not a given in marxist theory.
More than 60% of the Chinese economy is state owned and controlled, and as of I think a year ago they democratized Chinese company structures by mandating assemblies of employee representatives. The state having majority control and direction of the Chinese economy and market is the primary complaint of western trade partners, I don't know why people are always surprised by this.
I get that people really do not like the authoritarian aspects of the Chinese government, but state-controlled economies are pretty much the exact intent behind 'worker-controlled means of production' in marxism.
It’s not a rhetoric that was used before that much. Electing republicans was always a little bit correlated with stupidity but not like: Go full Trumpler/Hitler, full on conspiracy
You must not be old enough to remember the 2008 election, then. People were accusing Obama of being the literal antichrist, and was among the first to prominently feature conservative conspiracy theorists on national news (Don was calling in to talk shows to accuse Obama of being a Kenyan Muslim and demanding his birth certificate, then his long-form).
Maybe in hindsight it's hard to make a comparisons, but every election since then has represented the same choice between 'sane' democrats and 'crazy' conservatives. You can only have so many of those before they start to feel like the norm.
It’s sad that people rather don’t vote, and accept the fact that the states drift towards an autocratic system, than just vote for the lesser evil (or engage themselves politically).
Maybe it's sad, sure, but it's far from unusual. In the US, average eligible voter turnout fluctuates between 50-65%. In 2020 it was 65.3% (the highest ever recorded), and in 2024 it was 63.5%, the second-highest. Eligible voters end up not voting for a bunch of reasons, but the biggest reason is usually because they (rightly) feel like the choice has little actual impact on their day-to-day life. Even if you're relying on the 'most important election of our lifetime' motivation (the same rhetoric that's been used for the last 5-6 elections at least), many of those people are white middle-lower-class adults - those people don't believe they'd be the ones targeted by mass deportations or political imprisonment anyway. Granted, that's a short-sided reason not to vote, but let's not act surprised by low-income americans having a bit of an optimism bias (since they are consistently the largest pool of eligible voters).
You simply cannot expect every eligible voter to turnout for you if you aren't giving them compelling reasons to do so. But even in relative terms, the 2024 election was still only 1.7% behind the highest-ever turnout for a presidential election in our lifetime - american voters certainly did turn out, and many who abstained from voting were engaged. The problem is that they no longer believe the democrats actually represent their interests, and so went shopping elsewhere or didn't vote at all (or split their ticket). Blaming those voters without asking yourself why there were more of them this election is nothing more than political masturbation.
And just a reminder that the democratic party does actually have members in its caucus that have a higher than 60% approval rating nationwide, but for some reason they chose not to run those candidates
Democrats' inability to address what voters were actively demanding is why not enough people turned out for them.
Even in political terms, snubbing the Students for Justice in Palestine at the convention and refusing to let them speak was possibly the worst campaign decision of the last decade.
Hubris is thinking a few liberal voters in america could abate a global trend toward fascism without fundamentally changing anything about our broken capitalist system.
Mr Beast is the quintessential example of someone who defines themselves by their unfathomable success, attributing it to their unique work-ethic and dedication, and then collapses under the weight of their impossibly large ego
Seems relatively painless to chop those two instances off - chinese.lol has less than 200 users, and I can't even find instance info for doesnotexist.club (coincidence? i think NOT).
I do personally wonder how difficult it is to spin up new instances though. How much effort would it be for them to create a new one and do it again?
I'm actually most concerned with the IP leaking of the fediverse chick posts - hopefully some progress has been made with the IP leaking in auto-loaded external media through DM's
I disagree, I don't think people would resonate with that language as applied to other, 'good'/quiet billionaires like Gates, Buffet, or Page - in fact I think that's exactly the point of swapping terms because it sounds more specific to how those billionaires utilize their wealth and influence instead of the fact that they have it to begin with.