GarbageShoot [he/him]

The one is not the other

Oh sure, Owen was mistaken from the outset because his genuinely more-efficient way of running things isn’t going to be as profitable to the owning class, meaning that no amount of advocacy can escape the gravitational pull of the profit motive dragging it down into the mire of human misery. I was just talking about what he did that ruined his career from a practical standpoint by drawing the ire of the bourgeoisie, which was not his company town model alone.

Sorry to spam you with nitpicks, but I do feel obliged to say that while Einstein was certainly a socialist and spoke very well of Lenin and even Stalin, I don’t think we have evidence of him having a specific and cultivated political ideology that fit a label like “Marxism.” I think he was more of a generic humanist who appreciated what his Marxist contemporaries were doing.

Incidentally, how did Marx borrow from Proudhon? I fully only know of Proudhon through Discourse about concerning material he wrote and that quote about, ironically, wishing for a future where he would be executed as a conservative.

I think that what fucked over Owen, according to Engels, was not his coops but his assessment that they were inadequate and more fundamental changes to society were required, concerning marriage, religion, and something else that I forget. For just the coops, he was celebrated in a way that isn’t even that different from the OP, because he didn’t really shatter the existing paradigm, but produce an extremely productive version of it that just happened to be relatively pro-social.

They absolutely are, and many people would be excited to answer questions you have (including me, depending on the question). You just need to be careful not to come across as combative, because they’ll meet you in kind and it’ll be a dogpile.

c/askchapo , depending on the question

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-83-the-unchecked-conservative-ideology-of-us-medias-fact-check-verticals

I can do it too. MBFC is a hack website that equivocates between centrism and lack of bias. See this arbitrarily picked page for an example. See that graphic, the very first thing beneath the title? It’s giving the game away right there, with a left-right spectrum where the center is “least biased”. What about a centrist bias? Doesn’t exist, and the closer you get to centrist, the less “biased” you are.

Trump doesn’t have even a double-digit number of loyalists in the Senate and proportionately probably about the same in the House. This is a relevant detail because his enablers in Congress are overwhelmingly party loyalists who will drop him like a sack of potatoes the moment it becomes more expedient to. The reason that matters is that it was mainly the Republican Party that got all those Congresspeople elected, not Trump, even in the races where Trump endorsed them, so the relative locus of power is the Republican Party (and really it’s the donor class, but we don’t need to get into that).

All this to say that AP’s simplistic and unsubstantiated flattening of Venezuelan politics to “There’s one guy in charge of everything, his lockstep minions, and the brave rightists fighting them” is below you to believe.

He has shat the bed for his country

US sanctions fucked over the country, so unless you think “being disliked by the US” is a grave sin, this isn’t an accurate framing

I believe this is the “whataboutism” that liberals love to cry about so much (more properly, you’re deflecting to a completely different topic)

Maduro isn’t a socialist, Chavists aren’t socialists and he’s openly a Chavist (i.e. a follower in the tradition of Hugo Chavez, who was a great progressive but not really a socialist).

I don’t give a shit what the Carter Center has to say about any of America’s enemies, and they provide no means to evaluate the substance of the claim by “experts from the UN” (which is different from a report by the UN or an official committee of the UN).

And, again, Maduro did not appoint the judges; he doesn’t even have the power to.

Maybe most pertinently: Do you not remember last election cycle, when all the neoliberal news outlets were joined together in their outrage over the NED and friends saying Maduro stole the election, only for that claim to “just turn out” to be pulled from thin air? Do we need to do this every six years when a US-backed reactionary loses?

Quoting something that AP says without substantiation is not actually a good citation. It’s not like Maduro appointed the judges.

None of its supposed assets make up for the corporate overlords who run it and promote or permit all sorts of terrible things

Granted

There would be an immense toll, but it would mean the destruction of the US, Israel, NATO, and neoliberalism generally, which I think means there is also room for optimism. If I may gesture towards Mark Twain, there are two Reigns of Terror here, and though we have reason to fear the latter one, it will not last as long or kill as many as the former one that it puts an end to. If there is not a nuclear holocaust, anyway

Adam Johnson and Nima Shirazi

Citations Needed, excellent reporting on the way corporate news distorts various issues to shape public opinion, occasionally with historical examples going back to the antebellum period.

Reddit is notorious for astroturfing. The lemmy hivemind(s) is the lemmitor hivemind from people socialized on Reddit who came to lemmy and brought that shit with them. Same with other instances like .world, but worse because they have fewer legacy users.

It’s so annoying. I already had a liberal proactively bring the election up as though it wasn’t an open and shut case, as though it’s not just the even-more farcical version of what happened just like 5 years ago. There was a flurry of unsubstantiated accusations, because those are easy to make, and then reactionary media treats those accusations as though they were credible, and eventually proper investigations find that the accusations are so much hot air, but that can’t happen quickly enough to prevent the manufactured crisis of the accusations.

Taking “selling out your country” to new levels