Fortunately for Orban, Trump didn’t pick up the phone.
Only his election chance are dead… Orban got off easier than the Pope.
Well, it takes a couple of days… 🤞
It is using polymarket and kalshi to get an estimate of 30%. I don’t know how reliable that is as a source of information
I can’t think of anyone more unpopular than Vance.
I mean Trump’s a massive cunt, but at least his own side like him.
Vance hasn’t even got that…
Well… He did warn about foreign interests interfering with elections… Looks like he achieved his goal.
Kiss of death
Couch fuck of death
Wow, did JD’s death aura kill Orban’s chances?
That’s the kinda meddling we need.
Thank you 😂
Anything Trump touches, and by extension Vance, turns to shit.
A turd painted with gold spray paint is still a turd. King Turd.
Gonna be watching closely on Sunday. I heard that, due to Orban’s corruption, the other guy will need to take at least 55% of the vote in order for the results to show him victorious.
Time for another rally to make the chances even less!
Don’t tell me: they sent him on a donut run 😬
How long have you been working here?
Europe needs to elect socialist leaders to respond to this moment, or fall into the grips of fascism.
How does capitalism inevitably lead to fascism?
Basically, the issue with capitalism is that the more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to make more money. And since money can be used to buy goods, services and influence, there is always a way to use money to gain more political and social power. With that political and social power, you can push society and the legal system in the direction you want to go. So you can use your wealth to gain power, and then you can use your power to change laws and society so that you can make even more wealth and power. It’s a positive feedback loop.
Obviously, though, if the billionaires and ruling class are accumulating more and more of our society’s wealth, that inevitably means that there’s less for everyone else to go around - therefore, working class people feel poorer and poorer. Meanwhile, the economy is going absolutely great for rich people, so inflation continues to go up - everything gets more expensive, but wages don’t increase. The wealthy just keep more and more of the wealth for themselves. To accumulate more and more wealth, they change the laws so that they can avoid paying taxes, so public services collapse. Politicians are lobbied to ensure that public funds are diverted away from where it is most needed - housing, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure - and instead into industries where their class interests most benefit from it, such as weapons manufacturing and extractive industries such as fossil fuels and mining.
The working class are bound to notice that their lives are getting shittier and shittier, and if that situation is left unchecked, the working class would realize that the ruling class are fucking them over, rise up, and overthrow their rulers. Obviously, the ruling class need to do something about this, but there’s no solution that the ruling class can offer. They’re causing all of the problems, to fix them they’d have to give up some of their wealth and power - and that’s not something they’re going to do. So they need to find someone else to blame the problems we have in society on. Unfortunately, though, no matter who they blame the problems on, and no matter what they do to “fix” it, the issue will continue to persist, because the material conditions underlying the issues are, very intentionally, never addressed.
So, the conundrum returns: The ruling class said that minority A caused all of the problems, minority A is persecuted and oppressed, but society doesn’t actually get any better. Either the problem wasn’t minority A, or minority A just hasn’t been oppressed enough yet. So the ruling class can either escalate the oppression, or they can shift the focus to another minority group. The division continues to escalate in terms of how vitriolic and extreme it is, and it also continues to divide the working class into smaller and smaller groups.
To get the working class to buy into this hateful message, they need to take advantage of our worst instincts, and one of those instincts is the in-group bias. The majority are manipulated into being suspicious, then intolerant, then hateful, then violent, then genocidal, towards whatever the targeted minority of the day is. Anything that can be used to divide the working class - sexuality, nationality, immigration status, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, age, all of these will be used as wedges to keep the working class split apart and not working together, because they know that if the working class actually unite against them, they are completely and truly fucked.
That’s exactly how fascism manifests. It’s because it’s possible for people to accumulate power through wealth. This is why capitalism must be abolished. If we do not abolish capitalism, fascism will always return. It’s just a matter of time.
But can't capitalism can be reformed?
Capitalism cannot be reformed, any attempts to reform, democratize or socialize capitalism may yield short term improvements to quality of life of the working class, but if capitalism is not abolished, it will always reassert itself, and capitalism inevitably leads towards fascism. The New Deal prevented the US from sliding into fascism in the 20th century, so that’s ultimately a good thing, but it did not go far enough, and that’s why we have the resurgence of fascism in the 21st century America.
Socialist of what kind? Socialist communism is as close to fascism as you can get without being explicitly fascist.
I am an anarchist. If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress.
Deafboy said the exact same thing 13 hours before you did. You can read my reply there.
Your link doesn’t work.
Which one? They all work for me
The one where you write I can read it here.
Ah, I see, you’re struggling to debate my ideas on the merits, so you’re resorting to wasting my time. I’m not interested in childish games, I am trying to save lives here. I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is entirely your prerogative. All the best!
so you’re resorting to wasting my time.
Nope you were. IDK where “here” is, only you know that. And it takes only a second to make a link. Also you wanted to make a point, but failing to provide the link you also failed to make your point.
I don’t really give a shit about your point, and apparently you don’t either.
Europe had socialist leaders. It set half of it at least 50 years back in terms of social and economic progress, put up barbed wires around the borders, banned and imprissoned the oposition. Never more!
Yeah, the soviet union had a lot of problems, Stalin was a psycho. Let’s not do that, but we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach, rather than a top-down, centralized state. We can learn from the mistakes of the past.
I’d encourage you to check out an anarchist FAQ to learn more - If you haven’t heard much about anarchism before, you probably have some misconceptions about it, so I encourage you to watch the Q&Anarchy video series by Thought Slime or have a look through an Anarchist FAQ, because it’s almost definitely nothing like what you think. I personally believe that it’s the most coherent philosophy which adequately explains and addresses all of the problems which plague our society, and which holds the most promise for a path out of the inevitable cycle of the continuous rise and fall of fascism that capitalism makes inevitable.
we can do socialism using a bottom-up, direct democratic, consensus based decision making approach,
OK and what if that approach doesn’t lead to socialism? What you are describing is a change to how democracy works, why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries? And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?
You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse. What you suggest has no evidence of working. Social democracy does.
Also a consensus among just a few thousand people is impossible, Denmark that is one of the best democracies in the world, and we have 12 parties represented in parliament. How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?
Socialism is, by definition, social ownership of the means of production. That means instead of wealthy private individuals owning, for example, factories and hotels, the factories and the hotels are instead collectively owned and controlled - perhaps by everyone in society, perhaps by those who work there.
You are asking me, how would socialism lead to socialism.
why would that automatically lead to socialism, and be better than what we have in Scandinavian countries?
No bosses. No exploitation for profit. No pedophile billionaires fucking everyone over. Equality for all. No wage slavery. Unpleasant working conditions would be minimized. Democratization of the workplace.
And exactly what kind of socialism would it lead to?
It’s really important to emphasize that anarchism isn’t some blueprint for a society that we follow by rote and dogmatically implement, but rather a base layer of ideas we can use. As per an anarchist FAQ
Anarchists have always been reticent about spelling out their vision of the future in too much detail for it would be contrary to anarchist principles to be dogmatic about the precise forms the new society must take. Free people will create their own alternative institutions in response to conditions specific to their area as well as their needs, desires and hopes and it would be presumptuous of us to attempt to set forth universal policies in advance.
You are talking like a Russian agent trying to sow discourse.
Uhm… Russia isn’t socialist, mate. They’re very, very capitalist. Discourse is good. You might be thinking of discord. I’m just a gay autistic furry trying to make the world a better place.
What you suggest has no evidence of working.
That’s actually not true at all, neither historically nor in the present. The Zapatista movement is an example of an anarchist society with hundreds of thousands of individuals living under it, in Mexico. For a historical example, you might be interested to read about revolutionary Spain.
How would you run a country based on a principle that wouldn’t even work for a small city?
There are lots and lots of examples of this working in practice! I mentioned two above, but an anarchist FAQ has lots more answers for you.
Bottom up, direct democratic? Will we not have the same issues as now with people simply getting manipulated? Like seriously, 1/2 voted for Trump, a 2nd time no less. The problem is not the eventual type of government but how stupid, ignorant and selfish most people are.
Well, first off, ignorance, selfishness, and susceptibility to manipulation aren’t fixed traits, they’re produced and reinforced by hierarchical systems - states, corporations, mainstream media, etc. In other words, people behave the way they’re incentivized and conditioned to behave. Luckily, even if people are stupid and selfish, this system has a lot of safeguards, far more than representative democracy. I’ll explain:
A consensus-based decision making system does a great deal to prevent these issues. Under representative democracy, individuals have almost no influence. They don’t necessarily have to engage with - or even hear out - the opinions of everyone in a discussion. Political engagement is very low under representative democracy, but under a consensus system, necessarily, people need to engage to participate.
That engagement would mean that people have to hear out all voices in a debate, so they’d inherently become more informed on the facts. Additionally, this approach also adds social responsibility, since you’re not just casting a single vote, but need to confront your neighbors and discuss with them, meaning selfishness would also be counteracted through that social accountability.
Finally, anarchists are in favor of decentralized decision making. Instead of one big system where half the population can mess things up, anarchists work to build many small, autonomous groups, which are loosely coordinated and work together, with decisions made locally and then bubble up, rather than made centrally and imposed down. That way, even if one group makes bad decisions, it doesn’t drag everyone else down
It’s a childish fantasy that is completely unrealistic, consensus even among a thousand people is impossible and unrealistic.
The only consensus possible is the one that the 1 party communist countries in Europe had before Communism disappeared.
That 1 party system was of course in reality an authoritarian dictatorship. And those that disagree are put in prison. That’s how you create “consensus”.
