OurToothbrush

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They don’t exactly decide, they influence the decision.

"The didn't do that, they just did something that will predictably result in that"

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago

At least in the US, there has been a build up of case law over the past century and a half or so that provides vigorous protections of freedom of speech. The Red Scare is remembered as a scar on the US’s past, not to be repeated.

This is funny because we are currently going through a red scare.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago

Please attach the article

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago

Please attach the article

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago

Please attach the article

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

If independent media, as a whole, got too influential to the point that it was threatening the system, it would be targeted. We've seen this play out over and over again under capitalism. You literally just have to look to history to see this.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Okay, but you do see how thats pretty boutique compared to the local news channels, let alone the giants, right?

Small things are allowed to exist that oppose the dominant ideology until they meaningfully threaten it.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

But now with the Internet, there is less and less control by any one group. Certainly the age of the rich effectively controlling the media is over.

Pr teams have successfully learned how to use social media, and social media giants promote views that are beneficial to them like fascism while suppressing left wing content.

I dont think the internet existing makes us a democracy, the parasocial nature of a lot of internet content actually makes it so people are more able to sell their propaganda.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.

Economics is politics. The two are intertwined in every practical regard.

To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.

This is ahistorical. Colonialism does not require consensus or respect for individual rights and is a central feature of any capitalist system that is successful enough.

If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.

Oh yeah, socialists have done some horrible things. They pale in scale to the crimes of capitalism. The British empire, the nazi empire, the American empire. Socialism is a less violent system but that doesn't mean that violence stops.

I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.

If you support capitalism you literally support an informal caste system where a small caste owns the collective accumlated fruits of labor of the whole human race stretching back to the start of agriculture, where any attempt to change the state of affairs that has any chance of success gets jakarta methoded. That is much more authoritarian than a red terror.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

If the bourgeoisie decide elections through lobbying and media it isnt a democracy in a meaningful sense.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is just untrue though

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 years ago

We do not live in a republic democracy, we live in a republic dictatorship of capital.

view more: ‹ prev next ›