Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common.

And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it’s basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable.

Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into “The 1%” and “the worker class”. Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it’s material capabilities and necessities - hold true.

Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me.

And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs.

That notional aspiration to socialism is basically the ideological smokescreen. It was much more effective in the Cold War era, but it condenses down to: “Suffer through our version of (state) capitalism and exploitative labour for our capital accumulation” - be it by state institutions or even state-sponsored billionaires - “and at the end of it, we promise, there will be communism.”

But that “communism” then tends to be like nuclear fusion - always 20 years away.

Personally, I handle it like this: Killing people is never right, but it isn’t always the best decision to do “the right” thing. The right thing, morally, would have been, to collectively not create a system that has CEOs and billionaires. Just like, the ideal revolution would only depose and take the power from the ruling classes and would have no need for terror. But it’s usually impossible to follow a completely ideal situation.

I think the distinction is important, mainly because the enjoyment of revenge for revenge’s sake and violence for violence’s sake is pretty real and can become very dangerous to the success of revolutionary action. So it is good to remind yourself of the ideal situation (no killing), as to curb any excesses if at all possible. It does not mean you cannot go against those ideals - in the end, ideals are trumped by material reality and its necessities.

Nothing matters now.

Yeah, hard disagree on that. I was always against holding a false moral high ground and for using all means available to empower the working class. And that has mattered, matters, and will continue to matter. Only, the Democrats aren’t doing that. Sure, I can sympathise with Biden and I barely even know why Hunter was so targeted, I paid little attention to it. The thing remains - it is just protecting his own family, when he could do a lot more for people outside of his close circle with his last moments in office - in theory, at least, if he wasn’t just another Milquetoast Democrat.

Yeah, and this is just nepotist corruption to boot. It’s not like it is consciously leveraging the corruption within the system to put power into the hands of people that need and/or deserve it.

It is 100% worth it. For a way too long time in my life, I assumed it was just “edgy grimdark badass violence”, because I had only had a quick look at the first chapter. Without spoiling too much - it is in fact one of the best character explorations out there and masterfully develops from that initially simple-seeming premise.

Personally, it became my favourite manga, and one of my favourite stories told, period.

Seems like it is actually their stomachs turned inside-out

Apply directly on the Geebo

Oh, like German “Fach” then, I assume? That does actually make sense

You know what makes it even sadder? While propaganda does play a huge part of it, from all that we can gather information-wise, a vast majority is motivated by abject poverty and lack of perspectives in life instead of jingoist enthusiasm.

They have been beaten down and dehumanised by the system first, given a bleak and cynical outlook on life and themselves - and then basically been offered money for suicidal operations, most likely benefitting their relatives unless they manage to “win the lottery” and come back home alive.

There’s a very real risk this will become the future of recruitment in Western nations as well, so we really should not turn off our empathy, even though I will never understand how they can charge forward into pants-shitting terror like this, instead of either surrendering or downright fragging their commanders in open mutiny.

If these are two of the most powerful men on Earth, it’s surely time to jump on the next SpaceX rocket to Mars.

That is a weird way to spell “get out the guillotines”

Which I would classify as pretty weird, but not really unethical. Besides, I think the comparison doesn’t fully work - it’s more like, growing a lump on your body somewhere, having it removed, and saying “hey, can I eat that?”. Which I would also classify as weird, but not unethical.

There is actually a huge thing to consider with any kind of authoritarian system ideologically: Basically without fail, they will have a “rules for thee, not for me” dynamic behind the scenes. Make abortion illegal? It will still be possible to skirt the rules for the powerful, and pervert the right to control your own body as a woman into the privilege of powerful people - mostly men - to decide if they allow a pregnancy to continue.

Authoritarianism lives, psychologically, from having the people on top, the ones “worthy” in the eyes of ideology, being able to bend or fully circumvent the rules. Even today, this is clearly visible in how rich people, and even more so rich organisations, are treated differently in front of a court, where proper consequences seem to be an exception instead of the rule. This also shows in more fundamental, everyday mechanics of society, think of how the violence monopoly of the state more often than not rests on the tacit acceptance of excessive police violence. Where often, cops and paramilitaries in police roles within states are developing a self-image and identity, along the lines of “to protect society from itself and its horrendous violence, I must become a violent badass” - consciously or unconsciously enjoying the violence and control they can enact, or turning their heads when their colleagues do it, and reserving for themselves and their in-group the privilege to do so.

So, having someone like Trump, a clear narcissistic rapist, being both openly against abortion rights in his political platform while personally holding the belief of abortions being allowed, is no real contradiction at all. He can rest assured that if in power, he would have the privilege to force both consensual mistresses and victims of his assaults to have abortions anyway.

Exactly, it’s not like Trump himself is a fundamental Christian with misguided but deeply held convictions. He is a narcissist that wants adoration, power and to be in a special position where you can dodge consequences.

I know that there were (are?) browser extensions that fetch and display “karma” on profiles, at the very least on firefox. Might be worth a search for people interested in statistics and numbers going up.

Mayo + Ketchup combined, the classic “Rot-Weis”-combo in Germany.

That or, preferrably, mayo + a good chilli sauce

Hm, lets see if I can still get it together, it has been years since I read Lacan. All of this should be viewed as just from the top off my head the way I remember/interpreted it.

The phallus for Lacan is the imagined omnipotence and agency of our parents (or other caregivers) as we are a very young child and completely dependent on them, turned into a fundamental aspect of the unconscious. Further, it is some desirable aspect, that we imagined makes our caregiver desire other things more than our own needs. (Think: A mother may not immediately feed a child because she is occupied with something else, like the father.) It is the idea of having something, that can fulfil your needs - but is also intimidating and unpredictable, powerful yet volatile. In sexuation, Lacan argues, the “male” sexuation (note that Lacan already did not completely tie this to sex nor even gender as such, more to sexual roles that develop more broadly but have tendencies) projects this onto the proper phallus, i.e. penis, and desires to control it and use it, i.e. overcome the unconscious concept of castration (the realisation of your own powerlessness and dependency). Whereas the “female” sexuation starts to project onto the phallus the primal desire of getting back the symbolic phallus - fetishising it as something powerful that takes control of you and ultimately will enable you to reach the object of desire. Note that this object of desire to Lacan is a complex concept in the unconscious, and I can’t get it all together (and assume I already misremembered some stuff along the way), but at its core, it is an unreachable, unimaginable part of the unconscious, around which the rest of the unconscious circles, never quite reaching it.

The original image was just an image of a possessive gf holding up a guy by his dick.

*Dryena