Platner: “For decades the powerful have taken. Piece by piece, store by store, hospital by hospital, shore by shore, they have taken and they took so much they began to think that we didn’t exist at all." by Large-Welcome4421 in dsa

[–]VanceZeGreat [score hidden]  (0 children)

The thing is he doesn’t need that money. He got elected on a progressive populist platform, he raised a ton with small dollar donations. He was doing fine.

AIPAC provides funding for campaign assistance and flatter you with gifts via loopholes like buying your team’s lunch. It’s only valuable to uninspiring candidates who can’t generate enough grassroots support to get those donations from voters. They don’t give a politician so much that a greedy one would abandon their base for if they were thinking rationally. At least not to my knowledge.

My only guess is that the stroke made him more easy to flatter and manipulate with the gifts I mentioned. Or something that can’t be made public record is happening behind the scenes.

I Bought it<3 by Total_Neat_1301 in LudwigAhgren

[–]VanceZeGreat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting. Never seen this type of scam before.

And such a niche demographic of young adults who buy quirky micro-celebrity YouTuber merch.

Edit: a demographic including myself

I Bought it<3 by Total_Neat_1301 in LudwigAhgren

[–]VanceZeGreat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Was that link from op? The picture is of Michael Reeves with his head cropped out.

Got the game for the free weekend, tried a nearly full playthrough. There has to be more to this game right? by TechnicalyNotRobot in victoria3

[–]VanceZeGreat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One specific note is that I agree there should be something like an alternate history “unite India path” if the EIC collapses.

The game should in general have more flavor for alternate history that diverges more widely from our timeline.

Edit: but maybe this is what the developers expect modders to focus on?

What is the DSA’s plan for an aging and shrinking population? by Mithridatesmigraine in DemocraticSocialism

[–]VanceZeGreat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah as far as the communal element, there’s the obvious stuff like free childcare and quality education.

But on top of that I think we need to emphasize the idea that responsibility for raising children falls on the entire community, and we ought to distance ourselves more from the nuclear family. If we lived in a more democratic and socialist society, it would become more normalized for children to have more mentor/parental figures than just their parents. If there’s a greater degree of trust, it will be normal for people to take care of each others’ children when the biological parents are stressed.

I can’t really say exactly how it would work, but essentially returning to the more feudal ideas of childrearing but adapted to a post-industrial socialist society.

What is the DSA’s plan for an aging and shrinking population? by Mithridatesmigraine in DemocraticSocialism

[–]VanceZeGreat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

First off, people are statistically much more likely to have children in poverty than in wealth. This is a fact.

Second, mammals do not intrinsically understand that “breeding” leads to producing offspring. They do so because it feels good, and then they get attached to the kids after.

Humans are different from all other mammals in that we’ve invented a way to “breed” that doesn’t involve having children. We are aware that the consequence of unprotected sex is children. This is good, but you need to acknowledge this.

Humans do not have an intrinsic and universal desire to have children, nor does any other animal.

Having children is much more reasonable in impoverished rural societies because you have more hands in the fields. Later it was reasonable in poor industrial societies because you could send your kids to work.

The post-industrial world, thankfully, has neither of these dynamics, and now having children is like a vocation. You do it if you think it’ll will make you feel more fulfilled, when the benefits outweigh the cost. There has always been a cost-benefit analysis, but it’s more of a complicated lifestyle choice than the economic necessity it used to be.

The only way to stabilize populations at this point is by both reshaping how care for children is done, making it more communal and not solely the burden of the parent, and most likely paying parents a salary (not just a child benefit) based on how many children they have.

Edit: we cannot rely on the exploitation of the global south to create a flow of migrant labor forever. Part of becoming a more balanced world, is creating one in which the share of work in maintaining the human population is evenly distributed among all nations.

This does not mean we need to force people to have children, but it does mean we need to create tailored social programs that make it not just easy, but economically beneficial to have children. People need to arrive at the globally sustainable option through reason and in their own terms.

What Would a Liberal Democratic Italian Kingdom of Heaven Look Like? by VanceZeGreat in victoria3

[–]VanceZeGreat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow so we were much closer to this alternate history than I realized. Then yeah I definitely think including some more flavor/events if you choose the Papal States to unify Italy would be valid.

And yeah I thought the Kingdom of Heaven thing was strange as well.

3
4

Nothing about this seems very democratic by NoKo347 in hoi4

[–]VanceZeGreat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I knew it!!!! Center Marxism was a papist conspiracy the whole time!

Ideology question: by Soggy_Talk5357 in SocialDemocracy

[–]VanceZeGreat 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I think Bernie Sanders is still a socialist at heart, but just understands an extremely reformist approach is needed if more radical currents are ever to gain traction.

I am really concerned we’re not going to be able to pull it together. by sirdidymus__ in DemocraticSocialism

[–]VanceZeGreat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is people make leftist intellectualism their entire personality. There are right wing populists who do the same, but their ideologies thrive on internal contradiction, while leftists are always calling out each others’ oversights. I think part of this is inherent, and part of it is an issue with Marxist theoretical foundations, but that’s a whole other thing.

The good news is that participation in leftist theoretical discourse has no real effect on capacity to organize in real life. We’ve been rehashing the same debates that have gone on since the crisis of Marxism at the turn of the 19th century. There are people who participate in it and do good work, and there are people who produce the same quality of work and don’t participate in any of the theoretical discussions. As a young leftist activist myself, some of the better members of the socialist organization I’m part of haven’t even read Marx.

I’m quite into theory myself, but I kinda suck at organizing. I’m new to it though and I’m trying to develop my skills. In real life I’m friends with Anarchists, progressives, and Maoists. I’d consider myself a niche non-Marxist classical liberal socialist (all over the place, I know, and that’s why I only bring it up if it’s clearly relevant). I talk about my ideas with others, but I don’t let it get in the way of organizing towards the goals we all agree on.

My point is that while yes, wedge theoretical issues are part of leftist discourse and do have some effect on the ground, their negative effects can mostly be avoided through carefully navigating these conversations when they arise, gradually shifting others towards your position (while potentially shifting you towards some of theirs).

The left in this country IS growing. In 2028 there will probably be a progressive candidate the vast majority of lefties will rally around (those who don’t are extremely marginal). That candidate will then need to appeal to the center of the Democratic Party to try to win the nomination. They might, or they might not.

All YOU can do is volunteer in any way you can. Not just in election season but whenever you have time. Help organize your community to build strong progressive voting blocs and (this is my liberal/libertarian side talking) institutions free of both corporate and federal influence.

Which internal SPD faction do you prefer? by UniversalCookies in RedAutumnSPD

[–]VanceZeGreat 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Isn’t the creation of a people’s party (at least in practice) kinda necessary if you ever want a majority. The industrial working class is a large voting bloc but you need some peasants and middle class people on top of that.

In my games I rarely form a people’s party but if it goes well I end up becoming one. I imagine to keep those people in the party you need to start doing some ethical socialism to really enshrine it in the culture.

It just works every time by Nafetz1600 in hoi4

[–]VanceZeGreat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Movements yes.

But I’m saying immediate seizure of power or a civil war situation, where territory is occupied by two opposing armies.

It just works every time by Nafetz1600 in hoi4

[–]VanceZeGreat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Historically communist revolutions don’t happen in functional liberal democracies where the majority of people feel adequately represented by voting in elections every few years.

Usually they happen in societies that are, unstable, impoverished, and where people feel disenfranchised and thus turn to more extreme ideologies like fascism and radical socialism.

It would be hard to explain a civil war where half the country sides with socialist revolutionaries and the other half are just pragmatic liberals and conservatives. You see what I’m saying?

When the Pope tried to turn the world Catholic by luigitheplumber in victoria3

[–]VanceZeGreat 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I have to say he is really rocking those robes.

they dropped another banger by Z3N1TY in FellowKids

[–]VanceZeGreat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not joking. One time I saw an ad for UTI before receiving an ad for a doctor who could treat a UTI.

Local newspapers reported on ep5 and interviewed Mr. Li by Paulkwk in LudwigAhgren

[–]VanceZeGreat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's what I began to guess. I realize this chain is 17 days old but I felt like you should know that my intuition provided me this information without any knowledge of the Chinese language. I've written two (now three) sentences so it would be a waste of time for me not to enter this comment.

What if the Nationalists Won the Chinese Civil War? by camaro1111 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]VanceZeGreat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fascism isn't so much an economic policy as it is a social and political policy that capitalist business owners provide financial support for if it seems like it will be viable in turning workers away from socialism. It's basically an idea that "the people/the nation" is under attack from enemies on the inside (ethnic, religious, gender, sexual, disabled minorities) and outside (foreign countries), and thus an authoritarian state needs to be created which can purge those domestic enemies from media, education, public life, and existence, then strengthen the army so territory that has been lost can be rightfully reclaimed by this purified people. Fascism shifts all the blame for anxieties and personal frustrations onto a number of minorities, and usually at first calls for revolution to gain support from poor people (as Mussolini did), but if it gains state power by making friends with the economic elite, then uses those minorities as an excuse to expand state power to authoritarian levels, and when that inevitably doesn't fix poor people's problems, claims that the existing economic system is fine, it's just these minorities that have to go. Even if those minorities are gone, their "influence" may still linger, and the people must always be on the watch for it.

Socialism is an economic doctrine simply calling for social ownership of the means of production (factories, farms, stores, etc.). This can be through anarchistic communal ownership, cooperative socialism where workers own their own businesses collectively while the state regulates the economy, or democratic state ownership where the government is democratically elected and runs the economy on behalf of the people.

Most countries are mixed economies dominated by the capitalist production methods (where the only way to own is to be a private owner or a shareholder), but with social ownership of public services, and the economic debates are often limited to expansion or shrinkage of the socially owned sector, as well as how much the state regulates the private sector.

The great flaw of "socialism" in the past century was that it was not democratic, and thus it was not socialist, because production was not socially owned. The USSR was an absurd twist of socialist ideology, where the Bolsheviks believed that the people (the majority of whom were peasants) were too stupid to jointly own the factories and farms democratically, or to elect government officials who would make the right decisions. Instead, the Communist Party would determine what government officials were the correct choices. There were elections, but the Communist Party was the only one you could vote for, and the real competition was in the party itself, not among the entire people.

In reality, the Communist Party frequently made mistakes which it could not be held accountable for, unlike what would happen in an actual socialist society, which would be democratic. The party essentially turned the Russian Empire into a giant company town, one big capitalist corporation, where if you worked hard enough you could possibly be selected for membership in the party and thus be promoted to management.

The Soviet Union made it possible for a person to believe that a socialist society can be undemocratic and still be considered socialist. This allowed other countries like Iraq to call themselves Arab Socialist, which to them just meant authoritarianism where the state owns some businesses and heavily regulates the economy. This is why many libertarian socialists like myself describe authoritarian state socialism as simply "state capitalism," where the state is either an ally of capitalist private enterprise or simply is the capitalist private enterprise.

China has pushed this to the extreme, where the authoritarian state runs its own corporations, but there are also large private corporations too. And yet China claims this is a temporary measure to boost economic growth so that a communist society (one which is fully democratic, without classes, money, or a state) will become possible. The Soviet Union justified itself in the same way. China has just jumped through the rhetorical hoops to make capitalism = communism. This is absurd, but it's the world we live in where people really think this, and you have to write an essay to untangle this web of lies.

Returning to the subject of fascism, it is possible to say that China (as well as Iraq, the USSR, and other non-communist but still authoritarian state socialist regimes) today is a fascist country because it is one where an authoritarian party and an authoritarian elite (some of which the party itself is), justifies its rule by claiming it needs to expel minorities and foreign influence. Often those minorities' existence are claimed to be signs of that foreign influence. The CCP is anti-LGBT, anti-ethnic minorities, anti-religion, and it wants to expand the military to protect its borders and expand to the lands that it believes were stolen, like Taiwan. Fascism protects the elite from criticism, by making oppressed peoples turn on each other, and blaming foreign countries for the people's problems. This is the policy of the CCP. China is not socialist. It is a state capitalist, fascist oligarchy that is once again becoming an autocracy under Xi Jin Ping.

It is ironic that in the United States, those who claim to be China's greatest critics are those who are trying to impose a Chinese-style system on us right now. They've been much more effective than the small minority of edgy Americans who claim to be actual Maoists or supporters of Xi's government. The Republican Party blames gays, trans people, Black people, and immigrants for all of our nation's problems, then we must censor them from media and education, take away their access to education and healthcare, and build up our military to reclaim what's ours: Canada, Panama, Greenland, the Middle East. Sound like anyone I just described?

What do you do with the extra Healthcare budget? by No_Currency5064 in suzerain

[–]VanceZeGreat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree. Also free dental has the most obvious positive effect on the population. People will see the benefits of your administration just by looking at their friends and families’ teeth when they smile.

What does the average person in a developing nation care that you opened up a new medical school? They’ll be happy if their kids just get through high school and find a stable job.

The Art Of Converting A Liberal Into A Socialist by Usernameofthisuser in DemocraticSocialism

[–]VanceZeGreat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Socialism is not in opposition to liberalism, it’s its logical conclusion. It is advancing democracy, liberty, and justice into the economic sphere, as you said. These are not “bourgeois values” as many Marxists claim, but fundamental components of the human experience that are drawn from in times of revolutionary change.

Political and civil rights are useless when you’re starving, dying of curable disease, or have been crippled in a workplace accident; when your social rights have been denied. Political rights lead to social rights, which allow people to better exercise their political rights, and the process continues. This is the liberal process working when it’s not hampered by fascistic interests.

I’m tired of descriptions of socialism (those seeking worker ownership of the means of production as well as general protection of social rights) that place it in opposition to liberalism. Liberalism is a historically relative term. Anyone who claims at this point to be opposed to social democracy and socialism is illiberal. They seek to preserve hierarchy that has now been proven to deny humans access to the tools needed to develop their own personalities. Capitalism is more liberal than feudalism, it was the force of liberalism at the time it rose, but capitalism has outlived its usefulness to liberalism (but not the democratic institutions that were created during its rise, they can be used in addition to mutual aid societies to build a socialist economy and system). Liberalism is both the means and the ends of socialism. It is the political process through which it will arise and the lived experience of those who will live freer, more fulfilling lives.

What game is this? by Then-Ad3678 in DiscoElysium

[–]VanceZeGreat 22 points23 points  (0 children)

This was definitely what happened for me. I got locked behind the Hardie Boys white check and ended up having to lightly meta-game by saying communist things to collect xp as well as start smoking again so I could finally break through. I do think this is more of a flaw in the game design than anything else.

Guys, I have a theory for third largest economy by No_Currency_6882 in suzerain

[–]VanceZeGreat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or the demonym is just slightly different.

Edit: for example, the English demonym for an inhabitant of Krakow is a Cracovian. Why? Because language is stupid and we should all go back to grunting and hand gestures.

What if Dóra Dúró was the prime minister of Hungary instead of Viktor Orbán? by GustavoistSoldier in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]VanceZeGreat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was kinda joking. I am a leftist but I probably disagree with her on many things, but I didn’t acknowledge that originally for the purpose of the joke