my observation here is that "all change is a death".
Very few things in this world come into existence with the hope that the thing will die buried in the thing itself. While there are notable exceptions to this, MOST things that exist exist with the desire to not, on account of the fact that "ceasing to exist is usually not a contributor to stability", and if something is "short-lived" it is unlikely anyone will be around to see it. It ends up being "ephemeral" and so, at least within the set of things that endure and survive, change is a burdensome thing.
Not only this, but change is also, generally a lot of energy-intensive work, usually spread over a very long time-frame. Between the fact that change forever takes the instance of what was out of that location of the universe, and the fact that doing so is expensive to boot, it's no wonder that organisms might want to consider or pursue every option for lesser or more trivial changes rather than accept the burdensomeness of having to re-learn something and then force everything built on that into compatibility with the new concepts.
To that end, it's usually metabolically cheaper to be "right" than it is to be "wrong", and reproductively unappealing to those who don't want to have kids who waste all the time and effort of raising them in someone who will go down more such wasteful paths in life and suffer so many more pointless "deaths in parts" which the event of change represents.
This presents a conundrum though for those who are consummate fuckups, in that admitting to the need to change makes them reproductively less desirable to those that see it. As a result, the population will always gravitate towards hiding the signs that they are reproductively less fit, because their behavior is on average less stable and less conducive to stability.
It's OK if you don't understand, but you shouldn't project your confusion onto anyone else.
"Change is hard. Some changes are harder than others. There will be evolved mechanisms in place to drive people to the least expensive change that allows them to keep existing, and in a way that preserves the majority of what they are and were, because anything else is more tiresome and lethal to 'that which remains'."
If that's still too much for you...
"Change is hard and hurt. It like dying a bit. Few things accept die, and few things accept change. Same reason."
None of those "simple" or "succinct " "explanations" are actually explanatory in any sort of constructive way.
This is the same issue that any naturalist might find with the explanation of the sky being blue because "God thought that would look best", namely that "Pride" doesn't explain why the pride exists in the first place.
"Change is expensive and self-reconstructive" actually explains why "pride" arises, namely that Pride forces less tiresome possibilities to be explored before the more tiresome ones.
It also exposes the shortcomings of pride, especially excessive pride through its ostensible function, in excessively preventing fail-over into acceptance of change.
Welp, we just agree to disagree. Your response was initially to SoHy, so maybe she will chime in and say, "This is great! I agree with pretty much all you said and I understand it all". And you'll have your vindication. But I'm not getting my hopes up.
I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.
Things are changing as more and more of the Mamdani Marxist types get their hands on the levers of power. California governor Newsom is starting to sound like them. The thing you should be concerned about is not so much how much power they actually get but the damage they do to the Democratic Party and their chances of getting into the Whitehouse.
I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.
Things are changing as more and more of the Mamdani Marxist types get their hands on the levers of power. California governor Newsom is starting to sound like them. The thing you should be concerned about is not so much how much power they actually get but the damage they do to the Democratic Party and their chances of getting into the Whitehouse.
Nah
The biggest driver of change is the teaparty fascist government running the country at the federal level.
Of course I wouldn't expect an immigrant from GB to understand the basic US values.
Tom
I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.
The thing you should be concerned about is not so much how much power they actually get but the damage they do to the Democratic Party and their chances of getting into the Whitehouse.
You should see the ads in Ohio about LIBERAL AMY ACTON, and how she closed businesses and over one million people lost their jobs. Oddly enough she wasn't even Governor, and Ramaswamy supported the tough decisions being made by those in ACTUAL power.
The GOP is going to lie their ass off about every Democrat running for office. So with tattoos like Platner or not, they hate Israel. Whether they support reasonable economic policy or not, they are socialists.
And more importantly, I can talk to these people. I know where they are coming from. I'm well read in the subject and understanding both the flaws in the plan both economically and politically. Good luck talking to a MAGA who wants use to get Government's hands off their social security.
I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.
I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.
I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.
Things are changing as more and more of the Mamdani Marxist types get their hands on the levers of power. California governor Newsom is starting to sound like them. The thing you should be concerned about is not so much how much power they actually get but the damage they do to the Democratic Party and their chances of getting into the Whitehouse.
As far as the upcoming ballot measure on taxing billionaires in CA, yes you should be concerned. Even Gavvy sees the folly in that and has come out against it (at least until he decides to pander to somebody and "change his mind").
Sure in the distant past, but not so much during the past 50 years. Sure, we had some very awful, right wing presidents, but imo, none of them did anything close to what the current one is doing. Even the Idiot W helped get us Medicare Part D. But, sadly, it's not just the US that is headed in the wrong direction, it's happening in parts of Europe, although Trump currently wins the prize for begin an autocratic, psychopathic narcissistic incompetent leader. Then again, based on my extensive reading, Russel Vought is likely the shadow president who has helped the felon lead us into his mess.
You are conflating so many disparate concepts here that I shudder at the thought of untangling it all. So I won't even attempt to.
Elizabeth Warren had a lot of common sense ideas for tempering the excesses of corporate hegemony, blunting the worst of the current American model of privatize profit and wealth extracting while socializing risk. Nope, she was Hugo Chavez in drag.
However, while I do think that wealth taxes are a bad idea for a variety of reasons (better to add more income and capital gains brackets and close loopholes), her wealth tax plan would be a lot better than that advocated by Bernie, since it would kick it at significantly less than $1G and would thus apply to a lot more people. Any "billionaires only" tax scheme would have a limited impact because there just aren't that many billionaires around compared to hectomillionaires and dekamillionaires. As wealth taxes gain traction, Warren proposes levy on the ultra-rich
But no, for all that, Fauxcahontas is not a socialist.
DeSantis announced that Florida will have a task force force combating terrorists from Antifa to the Cartels. He didn’t mention the violent meth addled militias we have around here. Funny that.
Andrew Gillum is in a militia?
But seriously, the 2018 FL gubernatorial election was very close. Had Dems picked a better candidate than the meth addled Gillum, DeSantis may never have become governor. Primaries are important, which is why I think this trend of Dems picking extremists in the primaries is a very bad idea. For 2026, but also for the 2028 presidential election and beyond.
Class Consciousness as a phrase is a Marxist term of arm. So is the related concept of False Consciousness. It's more specific than just "econonic[sic] awareness". Do you even read theory, comrade?
So, still socialist. But far more obscure than Marxist version of it.
And this, once again, just took me a few seconds of Googling. Right-wingers wouldn't be interested in pesky historical facts like that though. Too intellectual.
Is that supposed to be some kind of defense of Mamdani? That he theoretically may not be a Marxist, but rather a follower of an obscure pre-Marxist socialist who also wants to "seize the means of production"?
Class Consciousness as a phrase is a Marxist term of arm. So is the related concept of False Consciousness. It's more specific than just "econonic[sic] awareness". Do you even read theory, comrade?
No kidding. If one were to be worried about Marxists sleeping under one's bed, or on the verge of seizing your 401k assets, class consciousness would be need the end of red flags.
Did he seize the Knicks when I wasn't looking? Citing one quote over and over doesn't mean a person is in danger of seizing the production. Jebus, if I was reduced to the most nonsensical thing I've ever said, I'd probably (am?) be the town's fool.
I don’t think the tea party/libertarians are fascist exactly. I do think that they mistakenly embraced Trumpism, which is an amalgam of kleptocracy and fascism, thinking that it would lead to their adolescent fantasy of no rules for me but plenty for thee if I don’t like you.
This is projection—we see how easily so called conservatives have embraced authoritarianism. At the same time, there is genuine risk of democratic socialism morphing into the same sort of authoritarianism, only called (Maoist) communism.
Authoritarianism is destructive and morally reprehensible regardless of the root ideology.
I don’t think the tea party/libertarians are fascist exactly. I do think that they mistakenly embraced Trumpism, which is an amalgam of kleptocracy and fascism, thinking that it would lead to their adolescent fantasy of no rules for me but plenty for thee if I don’t like you.
This is projection—we see how easily so called conservatives have embraced authoritarianism. At the same time, there is genuine risk of democratic socialism morphing into the same sort of authoritarianism, only called (Maoist) communism.
Authoritarianism is destructive and morally reprehensible regardless of the root ideology
Pedantry is about making fine distinctions that do not make a difference in practice. "Universal healthcare" is a term that is so broad that distinctions between different forms of it most definitely make a big difference in practice, and are thus far from being pedantic.
The thread is about a number of things and my point is they haven’t taken over any county, state or the country which strongly suggests they are not a real threat.
It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. Freezing rents means that landlord revenues will go down in real terms, while their expenses are likely to go up.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Class Consciousness as a phrase is a Marxist term of arm. So is the related concept of 
