A high inflation regime promotes taking on debt as inflation makes it cheaper to pay off. That debt will get spent. If hyperinflation is threatened, buying inflation hedges is the “smart” move - real estate, gold, foreign assets. This similarly applies to simply not holding on to savings, as inflation devalues all money that you save at a faster rate than durable goods.
This is, literally, basic economics. And none of it is mentioned in the article.
JFC I’m sorry Argentinian comrades.
Both are a false consciousness that, as such, function to obscure class antagonism and support the capitalist order. They are a form of liberal following a slightly different set of high priests than the others, though obviously they are not separate. While many liberals laugh at, for example, Austrian School economists, they do so while incorporating the ideas from that school that fit the current canon. All it takes is laundering them through other economists.
A Marxist analysis will look at the material basis for these ideologies. They are basically the same as for liberalism - they reinforce a substantial portion of the ruling class’s interests. The obvious one is that when the ruling class is interested in cutting its own taxes or regulations, this ideology is very useful. Though it really goes much farther than this: both are cults of capital in the extreme, justifying all capitalist actions as inherently just and all transgressions against them as inherently unjust. Consequently, they can be leveraged for anything that capitalists want except for maybe government grift. If a capitalist lobbying group wants a policy change they can push a “right libertarian” that wants it, easily. If a capitalist lobbying group doesn’t want a policy that threatens their interests, they can fund, say, the Cato institute to tell you some bullshit about how it’s bad according to their economic religion. It’s not fundamentally different from how capitalists fund others members of the political class.
To the extent that it is different is that it is more extreme. It’s a wrecking ball that competes with the interests of other capitalists that benefit from various government policies. So long as there’s a “big government” means by which to increase profit, there will be a fight.
On the personal psychological level there is plenty to discuss but I think the false consciousness is the most important aspect. “Right libertarians” get to pretend to be an outsider political trend, even one opposed to the status quo, and openly recognize various problems in the capitalist system. For example, they get to be vaguely anti-war, at least rhetorically. And they usually try to wash their hands of the decisions made by Democrats and Republicans. Then they go and reinforce the dominant capitalist system. In this sense they are very similar to radlib socdems, just with a different aesthetic for what it means to be an “outsider”.
In my experience, if you can get a right libertarian to actually read socialist theory they can actually be pipelined. Nowhere near 100% rate but better than your average lib. They will be annoying the whole time, though.
Given what American flags are made of probably carcinogenic fumes
It’s a meme that’s not 100% true but is true in spirit.
Gonzalites fucked up hard by picking fights with the people who should have been their allies - both MLs and entire populations in the countryside. And by pick fights I mean launch wars at them, killing entire villages for being “collaborators” or revisionist. In addition to being horrible in itself, this was (obviously) counterproductive and they failed entirely in their mission.
Burn it
The kind Vladimir Ilyich
It’s always good to take homelessness stats with a grain of salt. In the US, at least, there’s basically zero real-time tracking of who is unhoused. Instead, estimates are made via some fairly ridiculous processes. For example, some cities or states do it by picking one day every year to send a bunch of social workers and students out to count people sleeping on the street. That’s it. That’s the official stat, for the year, of who is homeless on the street and who is not. There is no baseline model that means you estimate a better number based on that limited observation. It is a guaranteed undercount.
The way in which you count as unhoused varies as well. Living out of your car is not counted in many metrics. Crashing on someone’s couch isn’t counted by many metrics.
It’s all a big clusterfuck and it could all be avoided by just providing housing. No need to even do these big counts if people just have a place to live. But instead, capitalism.
The first propaganda aspect of this discourse is to make you believe that who you personally vote for as an individual matters. Emphasis and focus are the most powerful tools of propaganda. When confronted with this topic by liberals you should dismiss it and change the subject to how to actually build power (not voting lol) to oppose the 98% Hitler and the 99% Hitler.
Your vote, as in a vote by you in particular, for President doesn’t matter. You are just one person and the electoral college makes even your miniscule vote almost entirely irrelevant if you live in one of ~45 non-swing states. Also your vote is anonymous, it doesn’t even hold discursive value. Vote for Stalin. It literally won’t matter if you’re acting as one person on your own.
You can make electoralism somewhat matter if you consider it as a mass action (mobilizing and growing your organizations, forming a disciplined bloc) or as a vehicle for exposing the masses to your positions but that’s a very different thing than liberals trying to pretend that guilting you into voting for a genocidal Zionist segregationist is good political work.
You are making other good points, some that I use as well. Liberals are stuck in myopic thinking that’s handed down to them by their political class because it benefits that political class at the expense of their voters. It’s always “this particular election is what matters so vote lesser evil” rather than thinking for two minutes about what it means to be a guaranteed vote whose demands can always be ignored. In fact, they even delude themselves into the exact opposite position of pretending that is the less consistent voters that will be ignored. Guess what: campaigns are going to run based on (1) donors, (2) trying to get people likely to vote for them to just vote at all and (3) trying to get swing voters in their side. Notice how none of those things include, “listen to the requests of those who always vote for us no matter what”. That’s a waste of limited resources. I can’t emphasize enough how much contempt most politicians have for their voters.
Anyways this myopia is exactly why you get public consent for a 98% Hitler. It’s why liberals side with fascists and genocide. They’re not just morally bankrupt, ignorant cowards being duped by obvious cons, they are an actual threat to us. They’re the ones that turn you in when you do direct actions. They’re the ones building the surveillance state. Working for military contractors. Creating bad faith propaganda against your organizing projects. Always reject their bullshit in the strongest possible terms.
Tankies when an American presidential election: this is the same liberal kayfabe that’s been going on for our entire lives and the best thing we can do is point out what its true function is.
Tankies on Putin: he’s just one guy, you’re not describing a Tankies because we don’t believe in your Great Man Theory fairytales. Feel free to rephrase once you know literally anything about this topic.
On centrists: wrong again Tankies just call centrists reactionaries. Y’all are right wing.
Your only excuse for being this confidently ignorant is if you’re 12.
Yeah that would also work.
I honestly think they are distinct, just playing for the same team. Playing different positions in defense of the capitalist order. Of course to do this they must collaborate and justify each other in some way, materially if not rhetorically.
To know the difference you just need to look at the role they’re playing.
jQuery bby
Hegel’s relation to Marxism is that Marx and Engels were big Hegel nerds (the Young Hegelians) before they got cool and they decided to incorporate a small piece of Hegel’s thinking (the dialectic) while flipping all the rest on its head.
So it’s useful to know Hegel so you know the lineage of thought but important to know that Marx used Hegelian thought as a critical target more than anything.
Ice is made up of water molecules. Very tiny things.
When water molecules move around really fast, that’s the exact same as them being hot. They are steam when they move around a lot, and steam is hot - and a gas. Steam might even be so hot it hurts - that’s because they’re smashing into the molecules in your body and making them move around too even when they shouldn’t and could damage you. Your body senses this and sends you pain signals so that you know to move away from the steam.
Water molecules can also stick together. With steam, the molecules move so much that they’re just bouncing around all over the place and the stickiness doesn’t really matter. If two water molecules stick together in steam, other ones are likely to ram into them and break them up This is why steam billows out in all directions. When water molecules in steam cool down, as in slow down, their stickiness to each other becomes a more important factor than before. The molecules still move around, just less than before. They interact with one another, keeping themselves tied together in the same general area but still moving a lot. This is why water settles into one place in a glass and why you can pour it as a room temperature liquid.
When water molecules get even cooler, the stickiness starts to matter even more. The molecules aren’t bouncing off each other much anymore, they’re just stuck together. This is what a solid is and ice is a solid.
Now, I’ve been saying stickiness, but with how small water molecules are, and what they’re made of, it’s actually very specific properties of the molecules that make them interact to “stick” together, with the strongest one being charge polarity. But that’s for a difference explanation!
Finally: so, for ice to melt, you need to get its molecules moving again. One way to get them moving is to expose them to a hot material, i.e. one that’s moving around a lot. Put your ice cube on a room temperature table and it will slowly melt because the molecules in the air and table are moving along so much that if the water molecules were doing the same they’d be in “liquid mode”. Another way is to add energy to the system in the form of radiation, which induces movement within the molecules and, therefore, between them since they’re in close proximity. The reason it makes them move is complicated and is literally quantum mechanics so I’ll also leave that for a different explanation.
I’m just guessing but assuming this is the creators making a direct commentary then I would say X-Rays are for seeing what’s inside a person, not just skin deep or by appearances. Liberals and fascists act very similarly at the end of the day so it may be the they’re just saying that liberals have a different idea on “the inside” vs fascists. This tracks with my understanding of them, which is that liberals think of themselves as good people in favor of “progressive” values (but not acting on them too quickly!) fighting the good fight for liberation and equality (in some incoherent form, e.g. liberals are usually still pretty racist). Fascists tend to be pretty in touch with their hatred of the marginalized and celebrate violence against them. They still think of themselves as good people but have no illusions about “progress”, they are reactionaries that openly want to roll back the clock on various “issues”.
But I may be reading too much into it. It may also be that the creators are just making fun of this person, as these characters are depicted in a way to make some criticisms of academic communists. Maybe they’re just letting them say something that’s both valid in many ways and stupid in some others to suggest their thoughts are unclear.
It’s fantastic.
There is never a counterargument and you were no exception.
Japanese carmakers were trying to go with hydrogen fuel and did a big grift on their government to get it subsidized. I think the idea was that Japan would have a national disadvantage with EV production as they don’t have the material base for batteries but they could have an advantage with hydrogen.
Those failed, or course. Now they’re a decade behind - there were only two Japanese EVs sold internationally just a few years ago.
Inflation is just rising costs. It includes price gauging and having to pay tariffs.