lucian1900

Being reasonable is often not effective. It’s like asking workers to communicate in a way that works for the capitalists’ police, as they get shot. Most Americans will choose fascism anyway, the only point is to get the rest to see it. Aggression is far more effective at that.

It’s not surprising you’d side with the empire, your material interests align with it. Y combinator is after all part of the export of capital at usury rates. It’s ok, when our turn comes we will make no excuses either.

Doesn’t really matter what you call it, the end result is about the same: polite thoughtful conversation on whether Chinese Americans should be interned or whether Eastern Europe should be invaded by NATO or even just whether exploiting workers is acceptable. It used to be about whether my Serbian neighbours should be bombed, but on previous forums.

Swipes at Americans are useful, it can make them wonder why their country is so hated across the world. It can also be useful as part of a wider polemic to re-focus on the real contradiction: imperialists versus the rest of us.

Your rules as enforced absolutely reinforce imperialism, regardless of your intentions. Again, it’s your website. I’m not going to convince you, just trying to explain to you what you’re doing.

Liberalism is the root of this obsession with civility, while our countries get bombed and pillaged. If you ban polemics, you side with the dominant ideology.

As before, you compare similar handling of centre-left and far right politics. Good luck with that.

Others are free to make inflammatory ideological and political points, as long as they conform to liberalism.

It’s your website, but history will not judge you kindly.

Sanders, maybe AOC. There are no US Democrats further left than that.

You do have far-left organisations in the US, though. There's the CPUSA and the PSL, for example.

Just because electoral politics in a particular country lack one end of the spectrum doesn't mean the spectrum doesn't exist.

Capitalists, otherwise known as the bourgeoisie, make money from owning capital.

Workers, otherwise known as the proletariat, make money from their own labour.

Workers are by definition not capitalists.

Yes, quite literally Bonapartist compromise between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

That’s what centrists tend to say, yes. Compromise between capitalists and workers.

Someone on the left might speak about trade unions, collectivising industry, arming workers, etc.

Warren and Sanders are centrists. Centre-right and centre-left respectively.

You're conflating the ideology capitalism uses to justify and maintain itself with its actual material reality. It's not a surprise, considering this ideology (liberalism) is fundamentally idealist and not materialist.

Have you actually read Marx or Engels? You'll find a holistic understanding of capitalism and its roots, its upsides and its downsides.

You're just describing class struggle and industry, not capitalism specifically.

Capitalism was once revolutionary against feudalism, as the bourgeoisie replaced the nobility as the ruling class. But that hasn't been the case for centuries.

Our industry developed due to the labour put in by so many and central planning and funding by several governments, not due to free markets.

It's a literal idealist position to insist that free markets cause development, when the vast majority of material evidence across the world points to the contrary.

Another option is a smartwatch. The screen isn't big enough to read much and notifications can be turned off. It's always with you and even has bluetooth, so no more wires.