lloydsmart

joined 2 years ago
[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 3 months ago

Ah yes, those who produce food and medicine should not be paid, of course.

All this does is guarantee a Trump win. The right aren't staying home. They're voting.

Ffs grow a backbone.

The Tories are going to attack you. They're your opposition, it's their job.

Decide your position and then defend it. Everyone hates this weasely politics.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Greys. Sports. Almanac.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 years ago (5 children)

It's not renewable but it is fossil free.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Americans make the worst tea. Cold and salty.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 years ago

I broadly agree with you, but would point out that the conflict isn't necessarily limited to Gaza. There've been rockets flying back and forth across the Lebanese border, sporadic violence in the West Bank, and there's always tension over the Golan Heights. Israel could find itself fighting a multi-front war against Hamas in Gaza, Lebanon/Hezbollah in the north west, Syria in the north east and Jordan in the east.

Not to mention Egypt aren't exactly their best buds either, and a US warship recently intercepted missiles coming towards Israel from Houthi rebels in Yemen.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago

Fair enough, thanks.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why does the existence of currency presuppose a state? Let alone one that involves class dominance? People can easily trade precious metals or crypto without the existence of a state, because these things don't need to be issued in order to represent value.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I see. In that case, I think the development of money is inevitable. People will want a standardized token of value that is universally accepted. If there is no state, something like gold or bitcoin will meet that need. Something rare but commoditized and fungible will inevitably become the standard unit of account that represents value, and a free market will mean that goods and services naturally find their own price.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

The bay of pigs invasion and the red scare were attempts to stop communist ideology from spreading. This was done in order to perpetuate and protect the status quo in the USA for geopolitical reasons, but is not necessary for capitalism to function. Many nations start conflicts with each other because of a difference in ideology, and a perceived need to contain or counteract the ideology of the other nation, and this is not limited to capitalist societies. The USSR for example engaged in many conflicts with its neighbors in an attempt to export the revolution and spread its influence. Yet I wouldn't say these conflicts were necessary for communism to function as a system, any more than the conflicts capitalist countries engaged in were necessary for capitalism to work.

I disagree that capitalism is not a natural state that things can revert to. I believe that if you were to take a random sample of humanity, wipe their memories and drop them on an alien world, capitalism would happen. Not because there's a "system" making it happen, but because that's just what people do.

I appreciate the recommendations. I'll check out Pëtr Kropotkin.

[–] lloydsmart@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thanks for these thoughts.

How are Microsoft and CNN part of the state? Aren't they just providing a service in exchange for money, in the same way a farmer, an actor or a mechanic does?

Your landlord example is interesting, and does illustrate how a state may be necessary to enforce private ownership, which is something I hadn't considered about capitalism before. I suppose the landlord could pay private militia to enforce their ownership claims over the land, but at that point the landlord is basically a warlord and realistically wouldn't need to pay for the land in the first place. The libertarian idea that everyone would voluntarily respect private property rights now seems as absurd as the communist idea that everyone would voluntarily share all property.

I don't quite see how hoarding property could be considered violent, assuming it was acquired peacefully. Using what you've acquired to gain materially is not necessarily exploitative if those gains come from voluntary exchange of goods and labour. If someone wants to clean my windows in exchange for some money, I don't see how it can be violent to enable that transaction. No one's being forced to do anything in that scenario.

Definitely some interesting ideas though.

view more: next ›