kugel7c

And you are ignoring the appeal of an obvious joke that's designed to be annoying to liberals/centrists and whatever. But also just be funny to everyone else. This sub is memes the twitter account is obvious ragebait/ shit posting just from the name alone...

The key here is "enjoyable" not "making their lives miserable" it doesn't matter whether anyone actually suffers or any change is enacted, it's a joke it's primary purpose is to be funny. It's secondary or tertiary purpose might be propaganda or education or whatever, it's still mostly just funny, for people that get it at least.

The joke here is on some level obviously includes the absurdity of arguments constructed against a nonsense critique trying to defend a system that the people arguing don't even really realize the joke is critiquing. Which is why the account tries to amp up the absurdity with their (non) dismissal of the pointles arguments.

To pull this whole joke into a more centrist perspective it's like posting whatever inclusive or "woke" idea on /pol/ and just typing nonsense as the replies to the highly structured but deeply misunderstanding shit that /pol/ will dream up on that given day. And having a great laugh about it.

Just that we exchange /Pol/ for twitter which is now apparently partially musk dickridig and as such a conservative late stage capitalist realist echo chamber. And we laugh at the stupid defenses they spin up for a non attack on their chosen saviour. Where the point of the joke is so obviously not understood by the people replying, but obviously understood by people voting here.

And probably only partially understood by you, and or me, but that's something we don't need to get into, because if we do, we are again missing the point of the joke.

No 100% renewables is viable. You don't need anything running beside it.

Accounting and banking.

Eh I'm pretty sure these parts are there to satisfy some outside actors, the theory behind it certainly is socialism/anarchism, and if you can make transformative change without sticking strictly to definitions from the 30s, that's still a good thing. Also I believe that democracy/socialism is not really a once you've got it you've got it thing but a continuous process that strives to better itself constantly, so yes it's still being built and it will be forever.

currently being built and fought for

Yeah I've certainly met people in Germany that knew it. Never heard anyone mention it in a US context, so I wanted to show some love.

So the hard but correct way to do this is to found a housing coop and buy up everything that gets to market, as well as build housing in large amounts. when the coop has two digit percentage ownership, rent and property prices should start to go down, especially if you also try for some political work. For example there exist rules in some places that limit short term rentals to 5months/year or one rental/person.

Since no one doesn't seem to be meant literally, 13 1/2 Leben des Kapitän Blaubär (13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear). It's a very humourous and arguably pretty absurd fantasy story, one of a handful of books I've actually read twice. Unfortunately I can't really say much about the English translation but if that's decent it should be very enjoyable to read.

Obviously they already exist and looking at cooperatives like that they mitigate most of the problems of private enterprise at least somewhat. The argument I'm making is that Private companies (especially large ones) are extremely dangerous to any system that tries to be democratic and because of the danger they pose shouldn't exist at all. I mean look at how much of US government is just captured by private companies and what effect that has (had) on politics in the country and on it's foreign policy as well.

The lack of education and an informed public is not the cause of the problems, it's one of the many symptoms. It's not like Bezos bought WaPo for sport. It's not like de santis and trump get fossil super Pacs by accident. It's not like super Pacs exist because voters love companies throwing tons of money into political messaging....

This is what I mean with Private enterprise is dangerous to democracy

These side effects were written into every liberal governments constitution by Bourgeoisie to protect their wealth from before democracy even existed. Sure there always were some concessions made towards people that weren't wealthy but obviously it was always the wealthy who had the greatest influence.

I don't care what particularly replaces it but this system must be changed so much to get rid of these perverse incentives that it should probably be called something else too.

Marx obviously is a good way of analyzing these failings of liberalism but he certainly is not the be all end all. Did you know for example that North eastern Syria has a constitution actively building a direct democratic rule in the region Constitution and Principles . The principles are anarchist or libertarian socialist in nature and certainly address the issues you had in terms of state authority and rush toward corruption and monopolization.

Theory and even practice of socialism obviously doesn't stop at Soviet or CCP "communism".

The problem is that current companies are authoritarian organizations as seen from the inside, there can still be competing companies and media without this internally authoritarian structure. Imagine every company was 51+% owned by it's workers, and they elected their senior/management staff. That would for what I understand capitalism as end it, but obviously would be vastly different from the few socialist attempts in history.

I would say the concept of liberal representative democracy is a scam, because on one hand lobbying and media control will decouple votes and decisionmakers from the actual collective good decision, and on the other hand party politics and and corruption will skew the fairness and representation even further from what is good.

And it's not like there aren't better concepts out there, the problem is more that almost all groups in liberal democracy, so parties, companies, the government itself are at best partially democratic and at worst authoritarian in nature. Especially companies obviously aren't usually democratic at all. So continued or deepening democratisation isn't actually in these groups interest because they or their leaders would lose power.

Council democracy or other direct democracy approaches are goals to work towards, or in some places just more representative and less dishonest voting would be a start.

In essence liberals like calling things democracy that on the whole make very few honest attempts at pursuing democracy, while still calling themselves democracies. I find nowadays my personal definition doesn't include these "democracies" and is more along the lines of "a continuous process that honestly tries to provide the most value for all people and pursues contious improvement toward that end."

I would love to see all of it go including stocks...