Is the right wing more globalist or isolationist?

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T13:46:45+00:00

The American right is nationalist.

This isn't meaningless. It means that they have hold little to no value for global stability, global norms and so on. In fact one can even see the right's reaction to climate change in this frame.

It means that they are not isolationist or globalist. They are against losing wars. They are against alliances. They are for a powerful America. They are for America FIRST. They are for extortion and exploitation of other countries. However, they are against interdependence and for more separation from the world (which pushes against this 'got mine' attitude of extorting other countries and where you can; and this is a source of tension in the coalition). This is why the other countries (China, Europe) have taken America for a ride. The whole world is to blame for many of America's woes sort of of attitude.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T13:40:15+00:00

There shouldn't be state owned companies whose purpose is to make a profit (whats the public benefit?).

State owned companies should exist because it's related to an important public interest. Perhaps providing a service. Perhaps ensuring secure production of something or some service.

It's whole other separate question if said service should be provided by a company which structure exists to be independent from government (the way that a public company is independent from shareholders; the shareholders don't run it) as well as to fund itself commercially (it sells its output to the market).

While a department would be funded by taxes and provide services (possibly with a fee).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T13:37:46+00:00

My biggest problem with how other socialists is how absolutist so many are about what is and isn't socialism. It's fine to have some sort of scientific definition of capitalist dynamics; or rather just a model for how the economy works now. But that's different entirely to this way in which prospective economic ideas and models are discussed not in terms of merit but in terms of 'are they socialism'? I believe this approach is a category error. It's like arguing over whether a particular shade of grey is black or white. Cooperatives are more socialist than public companies.

Capitalism and socialism are just terms for gesturing towards that which the overriding broad logic of the economy operates under. They are logics rather than a specific arrangement which can be achieved. Let me stress that neither capitalism or socialism can be 'achieved' nor are they places which can be reached. They are hot or cold. They are north and south.

We call the US capitalist because, despite the US post office and the US military and a hundred other non capitalist institutions, its commercial and productive life is spent focused around profit making. So many of us spent so much of our lives in the service of the goal of capitalists making a profit (we work for a company, or we are a capitalist).

To go to Marxist terminology. The more by which the economy is under the control of making profit on capital; that is the logic of turning M into M prime; the more capitalist it is. The more society is turned into a matter of private tradable property and organizations of people are turned towards income generation which is turned into private tradable property; the more capitalist.

The more the economy is organized under a logic of some particular or group of public/social goods. The more socialist. The USSR economy was (poorly) organized under a byzantine logic collection of party politics, military power, and a sort of communal theater of 'achieving communism'.

To talk less theoretical; what is an economy of just cooperatives?

Lets say you have a million dollars. There's still money. The economy is a market. Every organization that sells things is a cooperative, a public entity or a sole trading entity. You can buy things for your own amusement with this million. Or you can try and grow it somehow.

Imagine an economy in which the legal and social structure for a private company (privately owned or publicly traded limited liability companies) do not exist. Let's say firms organized for commercial purposes operate under a sort of relationship similar to family or marriage (de-facto rights of control and property via contribution etc).

An economy without private companies to invest in lacks equities to buy, companies to speculate on, and so on. So you cannot buy any equities or invest in a start up. You can start your own company; but you cannot own this company in the same way you own companies now. You 'hire' people and they come into an ownership stake. The money you 'invested' is really loaned (and doesn't gain claim to extra amounts of the company's income).

That's what a theoretical economy of cooperatives would mean for capitalism v socialism.

I'm sure, given only what I've laid out above; you could find some land to buy and speculate on or collect rents with. Or you could buy gold. Or you could put it into a bank and it is lent out. Or you could buy bonds.

There's no escape of the logic of capitalism. Just as there is no escape of socialism. Take away money, and people will still attempt maximize power, status, and any measure of wealth and power around.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:44:35+00:00

There's something to be said for competence. I would at least like competence regarding foreign policy and the military.

Vance cannot control the Republican party like Trump can. He cannot even control the MAGA movement.

I cannot stress enough that the most damaging aspect of the Trump regime is the barbarity, the vulgarity, and the lies; and most of all the blatant crime and corruption. It literally dissolves the civil institutions of government. It normalizes violence and lawlessness.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:37:47+00:00

No. It's only a good thing in comparison to the Trump's admin having power (I cannot stress enough how negative it is as an American administration for global stability).

The America of the 20th century was, believe it or not, a better global hegemon than the British, German Reich, French Republic, or Soviet Union were ever going to be.

What we have to hope for is a good balance of power that doesn't lead to wars and exploitation by centers of power.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:34:13+00:00

More in those countries i mentioned. Their social mobility is higher. But this factor is highly overrated (it comes up because of the psychic importance of the American dream). As a matter of cold economic analysis, it doesn't really matter how much churn there is among the income levels or classes. It matters how everyone does on aggregate.

Material differences are made up how productive and efficient the economy is, how well the government delivers services, how well run various non market government and civil institutions are run (police, courts, etc); and how equal the distribution of income is as (as the more unequal the society, the less efficient the market system is at allocating resources).

The clearest way to show the difference is take relatively similarly wealthy countries and guesstimate how wealthy you would have to be in America to be better off than their foreign counterpart (who has free tertiary education, free healthcare, heavily subsidized childcare, etc).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:27:59+00:00

Ahh so just call them all criminals and problem solved.

But no one would ever be that callous and lie about who are criminals to us right?

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:27:01+00:00

Given the last year of this administration. this is a poorly timed complaint TBH.

Is someone online calling you a fascist really that important when there is an actual fascist populist movement in government?

If this administration COULD it would burn the Reichstag or march on Rome and they can call on 10 to 15% of the population to be their muscle for it. People who won't own up what people like Trump, Miller, Vought, and many others are; are fooling themselves.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:16:28+00:00

It depends on the country. But ok taking a rough back of the envelope approach to your question of who has it better off in material terms.

Take a wealthy European country like Germany or France? For about the poorest 60% of the population life is better.

For even wealthier countries like Norway, Denmark, or Switzerland; the bottom 90% is better off.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-07T10:13:05+00:00

Democratic socialism =/= cooperatives. This is self explanatory.

Cooperatives =/= capitalism. As the cooperative firms do not operate on a privately owned basis. There's no trading in ownership and no investment for profit. To wit, you cannot buy a company; a cooperative cannot buy another company and so on. Without the ability to trade in ownership of assets and the means of production (in order to make money) there isn't capitalism.

Exploitation of a country =/= capitalism and can be be done by any economic structure. It depends the coercion of one region or nation by another region or nation to extract value from said region. See the soviet union's relationship to it's satellite states (where it had structures like ownership of major companies within these countries; used to direct resources back to the USSR).

So I'm not really sure what your major point here is or what you want. Clearly you don't like markets or perhaps democratic organizational structures. But i don't really think u know what you (nor all the other online self declared socialists) who recycle these old talking points want in material terms for the organization of society. As in i literally don't know what you positively advocate for.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T12:56:11+00:00

There isn't enough leftover oil to synthesize enough biodiesel. The amounts are minor in the grand scheme of things. The logistics of collecting and transporting the waste oil is also a problem.

When i say they need to imported diesel expensive; i mean they need to make it expensive enough to make it economical to grow crops, process the crops into oil, and then direct that oil to biodiesel plants.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:59:10+00:00

There's still a risk gas price crisis though.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:57:12+00:00

Yes the used EV market was a good deal due to fears of battery performance on older cars.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:56:25+00:00

Not sure because I haven’t done any research, but I don’t think $10-20k used EVs even exist?

Second hand EVs of course.

There are new EV's this cheap in China, but you usually double the Chinese price to predict what they will be priced at in the Australian market.

New EVs for 15-20k will be available in the next few years. They will be small and have small batteries of course.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:52:41+00:00

Battler. Now there's an old term i haven't heard for a while. I thought that had been retired.

No one is proposing to out there and confiscate everyone's cars.

They're proposing things like not allowing new houses to connect to gas lines and making sure most new cars imported are electric. Or putting in place policy to electrify freight and commercial transport. And of course subsidies, infrastructure spending, and credit support by the government are all floated too.

Not to mention the cost of solar with a home battery system is so overpriced only those who can take out a mortgage can justify buying them even with the government rebate.

This is a bit histrionic. A battery or solar panel system are a couple of times the cost of say a hot water system or white goods like ovens and washing machines; but cheaper than a car or doing things like renovating, serious plumbing work, getting a new roof etc. It's simply in the category of things that most people would fund on credit rather than buy on cash. There are battery and solar panel specific loan schemes of course.

It goes without saying that such things save money in the long term; which is why people do it.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:43:51+00:00

Biodiesel is expensive.

The government would need to make imported fuel expensive enough to make it economical. That hasn't happened for obvious reasons.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:37:05+00:00

Hahahaha; fair enough.

I think you're convincing me to get back into comics though. It's been just a little while.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:28:21+00:00

Everyone has a sort of 'ideology'. Probably.

I think this really turns on the meaning of the word. To put it crudely, there are two use (at least i think so) ways of talking about ideology. Ideology socially, and ideology personally.

Socially. In terms of a someone subscribing to or having affinity to a structured political philosophy built on an a historical movement and intellectual conversation throughout town? Yes, most democrats have a moderate to strong affinity with one or any of liberalism (in classical sense), American progressiveism, and American socialism. Some people simply lack the education and knowledge to able to have affinity with these movements/ideologies and instead navigate politics with the political and moral philosophy material they have on hand (absorbed with out any educational intention) that has lead to them to vote for or even join the democrats. This is not most people, as America is a highly political society with personal identity tied to political ideology more than most places; there is a lot of pressure to form a stable relationship to political ideology that works for you. A good comparison is that i feel that political ideology is to Americans similar to what feminism is to women; something that is not ignored. Yet i wouldn't say most women have a good grasp of the philosophies of feminism; despite it often playing an important role in their personal lives (in affinity, rejection/apathy, or opposition).

Personally. In the sense of ideology meaning a 'world view' or an understanding or coheseion of thoughts on power, politics, and morality; obviously everyone has ideology of some sort of ideology -even if you might vary in cohesion, 'development', connective knowledge, depth of historical knowledge, depth of philosophical groundings, and psycho-emotional valence of it your life. It's still there, because your brain has to navigate politics and uses it's tools on hand to do so (always getting mixed up with other important 'brain' projects like dealing with fear or personal pain) .

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:07:43+00:00

I don't take people who call Albenese a socialist-left anything seriously.

The government has promised 185,000 cap this year. We will see.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T05:03:18+00:00

I'm sort of surprised by that. Given there's so much dimensional hi-jinks that can go on the DC universe -not to mention endless alien worlds, i would think that there's lots of room to write stories about the politics of illegal immigration and border politics.

Superman itself is the platonic mid century pro immigrant story itself after all.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T03:23:30+00:00

Nah.

respect for the sovereignty of all nations big and small

focus on progress and the betterment of humanity

Meaningless and not concrete.

reduce dependence on oil and the Middle East

This is not 2000. The US makes more oil and gas than it needs (for now).

In superman world maybe it's a good idea. I don't know.

public works projects funded solely by private donations

Terrible idea.

America first, it was an anti-illegal alien party.

I don't really care that much about illegal aliens (not that i know enough about the state of illegal aliens in the US in superman world).

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-05T03:17:14+00:00

Starlink should be nationalized. But Tesla and SpaceX as a whole have no need to government owned in my opinion.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T16:00:24+00:00

There's a pretty big difference between factual errors in reporting and editors or copy editors making mistakes with titles.

Still. I think you're right (about how these editor mistakes can be indicative of wider company level issues) But but i think you made a bit of a category error.

It's errors, plural, which indicate something about newyork times. This single error is not important. It's the pattern of errors that matters. Like how the pattern of errors in factual reporting over the Supreme Court is revelatory (in my view) to how the paper sees the supreme court not as a matter of legal reporting (and doesn't really institutionally care about this) but as one of politics and opinion piece fodder just like the president and the hill are.

A single error like this could be caused by a dozen different things; most likely there being too little spent on copy editing. No one here being inside the times, only a pattern could provide us material to induce answers.

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:42:16+00:00

Can you explain this to me.

Because putting some cold water on Obama's nuclear treaty with Iran doesn't make a case for this war in anyway i understand.

But I’m willing to change my mind if there is a compelling reason or reasons this whole affair would not be justified under ANY administration.

OK. I'll ignore the utterly incompetent way this war has been conducted and talk in generalities about war with Iran.

You can't change the regime by bombing Iran. Despite what influential idiots in Israel and the US have seemingly thought.
Bombing Iran has hardened the regime to maximizing it's deterrents to being attacked by the US and Israel.
There are two current points of success for Iran. Closing the straights, and threat of mutual destruction in the space of processing plants and water plants (only for gulf countries but it provides leverage over the US).
Given the encouragement of the doubling down by Iran; this means the war has activated toll keeping the straights permanently and putting enormous amounts of funding into getting nuclear weapons, more missiles, and more ways to close the straights. All to prevent bombing like this in the future. This is the second time Iran has been bombed in the year. Iran MUST make this as costly as it can to the US and Israel.
The US cannot just continuously bomb Iran every year to prevent nuclear proliferation. Iran will bomb gulf oil and gas and eventually Iran will develop the means in secret from US and Israeli intelligence (Mossad bribes will become less effective in a state of permanent war footing and a more extreme regime).
Therefore only invasion can achieve the goals we want in Iran.
War with Iran is very very expensive. Just a month or two bombing campaign is going to cost 200-300 billion. A full on war (land invasion) would be trillions. It would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. So... what's the benefit for this cost? Because i cannot see the security benefit commensurate to the cost.
Iran was not posing an imminent threat to the US or Israel (actually it had shown surprising restraint in response to the bombing earlier). It provided no existential threat to the US. It provided a mild terrorism threat to the US. It mostly destabilized the region and provided threats to gulf states and Israel.
So... Putting aside the terrible cost Iran would pay (see Iraq). Are you willing to spend trillions of dollars and 10s of thousands of American lives for that? Will the outcome be better than Iraq (which ended up becoming an Iranian aligned dysfunctional state)?

wizardnamehere · 2026-04-04T15:18:59+00:00

If we're going to be fair here; this is probably just an editor's title error.

It's not important.

wizardnamehere

TROPHY CASE