@Zuzak
@hexbear.netI don't usually use forums or Lemmy, I usually just post comments on SocDem blogs but they didn't seem appropriate places to post my story. So here goes, I just wanted to share this with all of you.
Aug 8 I checked out Lemmy, I did lemmy.world then lemm.ee then hexbear.net next. I am an SocDem so I wanted to see socialists in these places. Yes, I know they are different kinds of "socialists" and not really full socialists like us. I went to Hexbear, which everyone knows is famous for its revolutionary socialism.
We started talking about politics and socialism. I was trying to talk about the right, they were like yeah no doubt the right was bad. But they wanted to talk about Western hegemony, Western hegemony this and that. This is when we started to get into a debate.
I told them that what they called Western hegemony is different from the rules based order. They said the rules based order is Western hegemony. And I said I agreed. That is what I am saying. Real Western hegemony is a rules based order. And they said yes, that is what we are trying to get rid of. And I said no, but we don't even have that right now. We need more Western hegemony. And everyone at the same time was like "nooo" we are socialists, we are against Western hegemony. Socialists oppose Western hegemony. And I said but not social democrats. Social democrats are the socialists who support NATO.
I think that is when it started to get a really bad vibe, really tense in the air. The hegemony thing was funny, we disagreed but I think they thought I was just confused. Everyone was uncomfortable now. Then someone said the rules based order won't allow international solidarity. And I said exactly, that's it, international solidarity is against the rules based order. And they kind of agreed, and said yes, we don't have real international solidarity, just imperialism, and we needed to respect Russian security concerns. I said no, we need less support for Russia, Russia is the enemy. And we need to defeat Russia to have socialism. Then they were all like "noooo" again. You know that thing people do in groups when everyone all says "nooo" or expresses some disapproval at the same time.
And one of them said "but Putin is a neoliberal transphobe" and then they kind of spoke back and forth in emojis. I didn't really understand it. And they asked me what I meant.
So I said okay, I had the floor, I was going to tell them about social democracy. I tried to explain to them that Putin was exactly like Hitler and that China is genociding Uighurs. I said the democrats have our best interests at heart and they had to increase military spending to counter foreign threats. They are trying their best. They said what do we want instead of communism. I said we want to defend the international order against anyone who defies it. They said that is what we have now. I said no, it would be even better. One of the guys said it was imperialism. And I said it is not imperialism.
Eventually one of the posters spoke up. He said he knew what social democracy was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if the IMF should be the only choice for developing counties. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people outside the imperial core were brainwashed. And I told him yes. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that that wouldn't happen under Western hegemony. But yes, Democrats could put immigrants in cages if they wanted to. They had to respect Western hegemony.
Then he called me a fascist again, and someone else said I was a fascist. And then they basically all started shouting fascist at me, and one of them posted a pig with shit on it's testicles and told me to go fuck myself. I remember yelling "you're being authoritarian!" and things like that. "Stop suppressing my free speech." Then the mods banned me for 1984 years.
So they were rude and authoritarian. I knew the tankies were not real socialists, but I never knew they would do something that bad.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/bruhr/i_am_a_surrogate_mother/
So I work at this warehouse that salvages old technology, like when a company gets rid of stuff they send it to us and we sort out what's scrap and what's valuable. Sometimes, we get random office supplies like stress balls or desk organizers or whatever, and generally we either throw them out or swipe them to have at our workstations.
Well, today I was going through a box and I found some weeb stuff, like anime posters and stuff. There was a big Monster Hunter: World book, a book about sushi, one about Edward Snowden, just random stuff. Then I see a book with Lelouch from Code Geass with his hand on Suzaku's chest, and at first I think it's just an art book because the official Code Geass art is super homoerotic, but nope. Turns out, I found someone's porn stash. And it's all in mint condition (thank god).
So like, rationally, I should just throw it away, right? But then goblin brain just starts screaming at me, "You have to save the yaois!" It's not even, like, if I just wanted that stuff I could buy it, but like, gay porn that I stole from work is like, that's a fucking magic item. It's like, the story, the bragging rights, it's just this impulse. Also I hate throwing stuff away especially when it's like brand new, and the (sfw) Monster Hunter book looks like I could sell it for like, $80 or something if I could get it out. So for now I just put it in an inconspicuous box.
Should I do gay crime??? I would have to get it past security, but they're mostly concerned about metal items. Should tell someone I found "some books" and see if I can get permission? Should I just forget about it because it's dumb and irresponsible??? Help.
I feel like the bizarre, nonsense logic of capitalism does a lot to obscure how much of a difference even a small increase in wages can make for people. Like, many people may see it as, a $1 raise for someone making $10/hr is the equivalent of a $2 raise to someone making $20/hr. But this is totally wrong.
The problem is that this accept the capitalistic logic in which everything is a commodity and all desires are the same and equal. You get your paycheck, and you may choose to spend it on food, video games, shelter, Funko Pops, you know, whatever you want. Obviously, this is a false equivalence. A certain standard of living is necessary just to survive and remain healthy enough to work. Since that standard of living is a prerequisite to working, treating it as just another option of what luxuries to buy makes no sense.
Rather, since people will have to spend a certain amount of money on necessities, then we can treat that money as earmarked from the moment they collect their paycheck. Which means that, rather that saying, "You get paid $10/hr," from another perspective, we can say, "Your boss provides you with room and board and transportation, and then an additional $1/hr." I know these numbers aren't super accurate, but just for the example to get the concept, if we say that $9 is what you need to survive, then at $10/hr you're really making "Necessities + $1/hr," and an increase from $10 to $11 is not merely a 10% raise - it's double what you were making before (after necessities).
The cost to provide the basic necessities does not increase as people get wealthier (contrary to what many economists seem to think), so you can subtract the same amount from the $20/hr wage and see that that person makes "Necessities + $11/hr." To get the same doubling of discretionary spending as a $1 raise at $10, you would have to go from $20 to $33. Which is fucking wild. As far as I can tell the biggest challenge to this is defining the cost of necessities, which can vary from place to place, but otherwise it sees to check out, conceptually.
The lesson here is that the law of diminishing returns is way more powerful than people give it credit for, and that a job that pays even a little bit more can make a big difference for a lot of people.
I got in trouble because someone posted a thread telling everyone to watch Parasite because it explains how reactionary chuds are actually good people deep down and they're just the beleagured working class and shit, and I responded to that talking about how in my own lived experience, people at the bottom are actually pretty chill and the working class chud thing is kinda exaggerrated and the reality is that a lot of chuds are middle class Boomer Karen small buisiness tyrants who love to throw their weight around. Everyone jumped down my throat and started putting words in my mouth and it became a minor struggle session. However, some other people were more chill and I tried my best to put it aside and evaluate the movie on it's own merits, thinking maybe those losers had just missed the point and it was actually good but in a different way than they interpred it. Here is my review:
The first half was slow. It was basically just the plot of The Music Man but edgier and more repetitive. I didn't feel invested in the characters and I felt like their definining chracteristics were that they were poor and also jerks. Yeah yeah I know the entire internet is screaming at me that the whole point is that capitalism forces them to be jerks, but like, does it though, in the movie? They didn't have to turn against other workers to get the first two hired, and it wasn't clear (at least to me) that that income wasn't enough to get by.
Then we have the bit with the guy in the basement. They could've absolutely just let him chill down there, but they didn't, because they were jerks. And because they're jerks and the relationship becomes antagonistic, it causes them all sorts of problems. It seemed to me like their jerkishness was more of a liability than an asset.
The climax didn't make any sense and wasn't believable. Like, the father secured this gullible rich fuck through whom he was able to secure a livlihood for himself and his family, and he randomly decides to throw it all away because the rich fucker said he smelled bad? And before everyone jumps down my throat for defending the rich guy, I'm not, fuck him, I'm just talking about the father's motivations.
The resolution was the worst part by far. Is there any sort of messaging about banding together with your fellow worker? Absolutely not. The son just fucking decides he wants to get rich enough to buy the house and that works, because the system is fair and anyone can get rich if they just try hard enough. What the actual fuck. Why didn't he just decide to get rich before any of this happened and save me two hours?
This is basically no different from people upholding The Joker as a socialist film. Socialism isn't just random acts of violence against rich people. Hating rich people, especially hating particular rich people, doesn't automatically make you a socialist. The movie doesn't make any sort of statement on where the Park's wealth came from which leaves the audience to figure out whether it's earned or unearned, and if you didn't already have socialist values then you could easily come away siding with the Parks. So why does everyone act like this is some great socialist masterpiece?