@Timo))) The will of the people helps our cause.

Not if they vote to ban communism right?

Right

So then the will of the people can just be swept aside?

Banking systems are always being debated, every government around the globe has teams researching it at all times, institutions and universities as well, its a genuine subject thats fluid, it does matter -- but talking about raping people as consequence to any policy changes or complete overhauls is just daft

@Timo))) after we democratically rape bankers, yes.

wew

You dont want fiscal changes if you act like that

People always let the larpers control discord

Radical opinions are fine, so long as they have actual merit

retardation should not be argued

for or against

@Deleted User Is supporting international financial capital considered larping?

yeah, because it's stupid

why?

Jewish bankers

@Timo))) this guy does it 24/7

In this chat

?

He does nothing else

I'm for a more free market yes

Monoplies allow people to gain power over small business and governments, being too big for there own good.

Which is how these international banks were set up by the Rothchilds and so on

Private businesses and privately owned land should be allowed.

But no monopolies

Thats under crony cap or a keynes economy, 'too big to fail' but under free market they absolutely can fail, some would have if not for the obama bailouts

monopolies often happen thanks to government making it more difficult for newcomers

or popping up big businesses because they are too big to fail, too many people lose jobs

Which is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wounds

Free Markets you get Russia in the 1900s.

Workers rights get abused.

Under free market they would not get bailouts, and the market would turn to other products/business in its place, the best quality/value wins

More like early U.S days

When millions went there and not to be abused

People reee about welfare and its a socialist version of welfare, the free market version is called negative tax income and has never been used

There has to be some government control of the markets, to ensure the businesses aren't abusing the employees,

But i'm not too big on economics

So, it may be a bad idea.

Some sure, but some are also covered by the law, you can't hit your employees

I don't know

And I'm all for labour unions provided they're not mandatory

You can get better conditions that way

And ive read the sigmund freud book leftypol recommended, civilization and its discontent, about peoples egos and wanting what makes them happy - if you want change its not gonna come by way of threats

That goes to anyone, WNs natsocs ancaps, ancoms whatever

Or thats what I took away from the book

Anyways, nigger nigger nigger kike kike kike gas gas gas

Kek

throw in a bourgie and you'll fit in good

@Timo))) hello Timo

hi

I have a question for you all: What is with the obession with economics and politics?

@Chillin Chum How's your summer break going, pal?

Summer break?

I graduated 6 years ago.

Do you go to school year round?

If I did. Not anymore.

Politics and economics are vital to society

and they're all fucked up

What if I told you that's only a small part of the story?

Sure, make your case

That it being messed up is only a symptom?

There's always a root cause

what if I told you that........

Ultimately I won't be able to make a wholy satisfying case, I can't just convince anyone on some intellectual ground.

But as far as I can tell, as long as your working with fundamental flaws in humans, or rather relatable mistakes, you'll be stuck making half-way solutions that ultimately won't work under any system if your only focused on economics and politics.

So for starters, I have to question why there should be a focus on a fraction of everything.

So you think human nature is the cause of societies problems?

I know that as long as there is a chance to make mistakes, to have frailties, you can't have a system that will work perfectly.
Only a theortically perfect intelligence could achieve that. (And since it is likely to bring up a lot of stuff that would only encourage a flame war. Let's just leave the perfect person thing alone.)

I just mean that I just don't feel that government can solve all our problems,and particularly if it's a character problem, only we can change ourselves.

Yeah, but I mean society is implemented from the top down

I would rather work the other way.

That way doesn't seem to be working.

you implement changes via politics that affect people's goals and environments

I don't see government changing the character of people, do you?

Interestingly, that was the fundamental principle of Maoism.

that the government would change the people.

and likewise, the people would change the government, in a never-ending series of contradictions.

*it failed miserably.*

Communism always fails

it's a bullshit system

Of course.

Let me ask you, what do you think is wrong with people

You can't blanket it. It tends to be case by case.

But.....you could start with a fear of not having enough control, not having enough. That's common.

Can't really make egalitarianism work until they believe in it.

egalitarianism isn't based in reality though

people have differences

And neither is any other political system I've ever seen. I see no difference.

Always a bunch of comprises at the end of the day. And since I want real change and not to just wish for it....

Well, I think the main problem with our society (Western) is that we've lost our collective identity. We are driven by consumerism and individualism.

It achieves nothing

Not on the whole. But I think I see the same problem. A lot of people are less understanding, more prone to being offended, and that's just to start.

The economy is structured in a way that purposely creates debt, it's like a form of slavery

While you can argue that.

People are being divided into camps by media and pop culture

On the flip side a lot of people still want to maintain high appearances, and don't live within thier means.

That debt was thier own mistake. If only they didn't have thier confidence come from such materialism and learned to be happy with what they had in the moment, especially if they could say they owned what they had?

there are too many problems for anyone to just simplify it with a single answer

This is correct.

Which makes the political-economic obession make even less sense to me.