Message from Jeremy in Athens #piraeus_politics_news

2019-09-10 10:45:43 UTC  


2019-09-10 10:45:59 UTC  

Guardian is cancer

2019-09-10 10:46:06 UTC  

Agreed, they’re a socialist nation - as it says in their constitution. I think the path China is on is fine, it’s proven to work. They’re soon to be the largest economy in the world, they have control over their population, they’re expanding their influence, they’re able to deal with ‘problem’ groups, etc. I don’t believe China is fascist yet though. @Jeremy

2019-09-10 10:47:08 UTC  

China isn't fascist. *boggle*

2019-09-10 10:47:45 UTC  

What China is, is winning. All else is kinda senseless rambling tbh

2019-09-10 10:48:27 UTC  

@Jeremy Hmm, I think that's looking at it from too "top-down" a view. Or perhaps too broad a view, at least for the purpose of explaining one's personal affinity for markets.
It's true, a free market is best for society but that's because it's good for individuals. Because the trader relationship between even two people is fundamentally benevolent.

2019-09-10 10:49:47 UTC  

free market is democracy via dollar

2019-09-10 10:50:51 UTC  

They can be winning -and- be fascist

2019-09-10 10:50:52 UTC  

- The imperialistic forces of the US capitalists must eventually fall before the righteousness of the people's revolution! Materialist History *dictates* we must win!
- First Secretary, the Americans are, like, 14 times richer then us...
- Nonsense Sergey, our people are rich in socialist fervor and anti-reactionary spirit!

This is you saying China is done for.

2019-09-10 10:51:23 UTC  

question being how

2019-09-10 10:51:57 UTC  

how what?

2019-09-10 10:52:18 UTC  

ffs, Jeremy is producing an essay

2019-09-10 10:52:21 UTC  

If fascism wins, we'll soon all be Fascist

2019-09-10 10:52:32 UTC  

if it is so, don be a fascist-phobe

2019-09-10 10:52:40 UTC  

@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.

2019-09-10 10:52:45 UTC  

We're already in something approaching fascism

2019-09-10 10:52:49 UTC  

You guys move too fast.

2019-09-10 10:52:54 UTC  

I can barely keep up.

2019-09-10 10:53:18 UTC  

What is the 17th ammendment?

2019-09-10 10:53:22 UTC  

Uzalu's voice is so good

2019-09-10 10:54:10 UTC  

Yeah still doesn't make sense to me, but thanks for tryig

2019-09-10 10:54:54 UTC  

I'm having to skim cos i'm working iaw, Jeremy, but what are you proposing you replace the american federal voting system with?

2019-09-10 10:55:25 UTC  

Replace it with swiss cheese

2019-09-10 10:55:42 UTC  

A Monarch crowned by God 👑 @Eccles 😉

2019-09-10 10:55:59 UTC  

May be better or worse, Doom

2019-09-10 10:56:03 UTC

2019-09-10 10:56:36 UTC  

@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.

2019-09-10 10:57:13 UTC  

Nah, the argument that a monarchy is only as good as the monarch is gay cringe. It's only really true of extreme forms of despotic monarchy with little to no formal institutions.

2019-09-10 10:57:39 UTC  

I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.

2019-09-10 10:57:55 UTC  

Appointed by whom, Jeremy?

2019-09-10 10:58:03 UTC  

The House.

2019-09-10 10:58:04 UTC  

God, ofc^^

2019-09-10 10:58:07 UTC  

As I said

2019-09-10 10:58:31 UTC  

The State house?

2019-09-10 10:59:16 UTC  

@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.

2019-09-10 10:59:50 UTC  

No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.

2019-09-10 11:00:00 UTC  

That sounds like a terrible idea

2019-09-10 11:00:19 UTC  

Why do you think that's the case?

2019-09-10 11:00:34 UTC  

You would see the likes of California and Washington State and New York trounce over the flyover states?

2019-09-10 11:00:50 UTC  

You would be a failed socilaist state in a heartbeat