You might be interested in anarchist and council communism then, perhaps

Not if a certain orange is held at gunpoint and shown the correspondence evidence he’s trying to destroy. For legal purposes, not that I condone it or anything.

The constitution didn’t prevent a felon and rapist from becoming a president. It didn’t prevent far-right militias from being combatted, nor fully abolishes slavery. I say the constitution is dead and needs to be replaced by one in where socialist and democratic principles prevail.

Mamdani.

There is no establishing of any ideology without action. So I’m not gonna list stuff you can do with just sitting there. But some of them are easier than others, that is true.

That said, here are ten points. I’m using “socialism” here in its nigh broadest sense possible, covering anything from anarchist communism to social democracy, but excepting totalitarianist forms insofar they are anti-worker.

I use “fascism” to refer to most ideologies that cover Umberto Eco’s elements of urfascism; thus, fascism, nazism, national-conservatism, etc.

You don’t need to do all of these; any of them helps. To me, anyone opposing fascism and totalitarianism is a friend of society.

And remember: whoever is not a fascist and tolerates social democrats and socialists, is alright!

We don’t need to constantly get annoyed by them nor by our own people too harshly, when they’re there. What we need, is to focus on what we share and forge strong bonds: and to focus on defeating fascism.

A gift economy is not market socialist. Let’s visualise it with a few examples, on a spectrum. I’ll add a few remarks on the politics.

Anglo-Saxon model
Close to “free” capitalism, in that companies experience relatively little regulation (or consequences when they behave against the general wellbeing, such as dumping sewage in rivers, and the CEOs not being held responsible). The economy is highly linked to supply and demand, but this can be very variable and thus crashes and crises will be worse for the public, and peaks as well.

In there, hierarchy and private property play a large role; the boss ‘owns’ the machinery, through which their employees actually do the hard work to generate profit, which mostly goes to the boss. The US and to a lesser extent, the UK, are examples of this. The police and politics frequently are under the leadership of former company leaders, who earn their political power through bribery thanks to the power of companies. As such, they have an interest to repress socialism.

Rhine model
In there, labour union, company, and government leaders, often collectively negotiate with each other. Generally, regulation is higher, with an accent on family, friends, and social workers first taking care of the impoverished and disabled, and after that, the state. The market does play a role, but there is a relatively greater degree of social security - Germany is an archetypical example of this. These seem to mostly occur in countries that do not have a political duopoly, since groups have to negotiate more often to govern.

Mediterranean model
Similar to the Rhine model, although with a strong accent on care for the elderly with high pensions. I unfortunately do not know much of this one, otherwise. Italy and Spain are examples. Co-operatives and family companies tend to be very common in these.

Nordic model
The most extensively socialised form of a capitalist market economy; it has strong wellbeing and labour protections, high unionisation rates, collective bargaining, and provides a “from the cradle to the grave” model. The Nordic countries are good examples of these.

In good years, the state saves up the profit so that in bad years the state may be able to cover the fall; the public as thus does not experience much of financial crises. In my opinion, this is one that has worked very well; but my main criticism for this model (although much less than on other models) is that economical leadership is still in the hands of CEOs, and thus the economy is susceptible to corruption from inside. Were these to be supervised by e.g. trade unions instead, and were labour decentrally organised, I think this model would go a long end towards democratic market socialism. And thus we enter;

Market socialism
Which functionally encompasses just that; like the Nordic model, it increases socioeconomic equality by a great extent, but unlike the Nordic model, it also changes ownership patterns. Yugoslavia was an excellent example of this, in where decentral planning occurred, with worker self-management. A side-remark, but Yugoslavia had the problem that it relied on e.g. oil too much; it should have diversified. SEOs like in China are another example of this economic model, though CEOs are supervised by party leaders, and I think there should be no CEOs altogether. Vietnam has a similar model, with a lot of worker co-ops. But that said, I think Yugoslavia was as close to ideal as had been in a sovereign recognised country. In such a model, supply and demand also still influence the market, and that might be useful as an indicator to where put more support.

Gift economy
There are some various implementations of this. I personally favour a potlatch- or koha-like system, with a give-it-forward model. In there, everyone gives their share as a donation, to aid another, so that in turn they may also be helped. It’s similar to how people may buy a coffee/beer for a developer, which in turn will be able to continue work and thus be able to give them software updates.

Something I ponder, is that what you see, is that in societies where disasters occur, gifting becomes a mode of economy again. I feel like it might be because it relies on aid rather than on capability to profit; and so to receive necessary goods, you should be seen as a kind person - which requires donations.

Labour vouchers are different. They’re a bit of the “work an hour, you can buy something that takes an hour to work for it with it”.

The upside they have, is that unlike money, such labour vouchers are not transferrable from person to person, nor for any means of production. Therefore, they can’t become capital. It also ensures that there’s no way to accumulate money by having a lot of money - you either work for the voucher or you can’t buy.

The issue with such labour vouchers however, is that they still tie your worth to a sort of wage. It’s money, just by another means. So people who work 60 hours a week and burn themselves out, would have an advantage, whereas people who couldn’t work, would have issues. Sure, that could be taken into account, but essentially it retains a form of wage labour.

What we want, is an economy that solves the question of:

1. How do we create the greatest general wellbeing, and prevent that from being undermined? That being, social ownership of the economy by the people?

2. How do we incentivise people to give their due share to society, without it being tied to a wage system? That being a system that combats exploitation and authoritarianism?

That has to be a system in where it is impossible to hoard in the first place without suffering; a system in where sharing yourself increases your own and general wellbeing.

That is why I favour a give-it-forward system. By gifting, you help others, and enable yourself to also get something. If you didn’t give, you would not gain access to these goods. I personally think the answer to “how do we achieve socialism?” is not, “either union, direct action, party politics, revolution, insurrection, media, or regulation”, but all of them.

Unions are useful for banding together. Direct action can be quickly organised. Party politics allows for determining courses. Revolution and insurrection changes, but that requires wide popular support. Media can bring forth a narrative supportive of socialism and communism, while regulation will clarify what paths should be favoured and what not. Socialism is not a path of infighting and authoritarianism; it is a path of solidarity and liberation.

There’s the principle of “give it forward” which could be used in a gift economy.

If you want something at a bar, you don’t order for yourself, but for someone else. It fosters solidarity.

Potlachs (potlucks, potlatches) are also a good method, in where you have shared communal meals and everyone brings a little. Not unlike Christmas dinners with your (blood/chosen) family.

Good point, thanks for the addition/correction. I didn’t know A existed, you learn something new everyday :)

No, the sun’s real colour image is white, but due to our nitrogen-oxygen and ozone layer atmosphere filtering certain light, it comes out blue, iirc. It also depends on the angle; if the angle is low, more light will be filtered and therefore yellow, orange, and red light will pop up more.

As for the friend, he’s a first grade idiot and conspiracy fool. He needs to take physics.

While it economically can, we should also be able to military defend all Europe ourselves.

That’s the same reason for me, I want to birth children even though I sadly can’t due to lacking a uterus. I actually like the idea of undergoing pregnancy.

List of things the fictional Abrahamitic God did that broke their own commandments, or hypocritical moments:

• God claiming to be the sole God (in the Bible itself, references to other deities with apparent powers exist such as Ba’al)
• God claiming that people shall worship no other gods: see above. Insecure, much?
• No making of images (while they make humans in their image)
• No taking their name in vain (scorns others regularly)
• Remembering and observing the sabbath (doesn’t even do it themselves)
• Honouring parents (doesn’t even have any parents themselves)
• Thou shalt not kill (literally the whole flood, firstborn kills, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.)
• No committing adultery (God doesn’t even do sex themselves I think)
• No stealing (they steal immortality from humanity)
• No lying (lies to Isaac to make him offer his own son)
• Don’t be envious of other peoples’ partners and stuff (didn’t like that humans became self-conscious, handicapped the garden’s snake for givinf that, killed people in Sodom and Gomorrah because they were probably queer)
• Set up stones bc I said so (if God is almighty then why do they not simply put this thought into everyone?)

In a nutshell, that Abrahamitic God is a raging insecure hypocrite.

Writing was invented independently across multiple places and times.

Seems like the bubble’s gonna burst soon.

also, kim has nukes and a large army.

Bad: someone being ruler purely for being born out of a specific cunt.

The good would be that it’s slightly less theocratic, probably.

True democracy can only come with workplace democracy - that being one in where you have no boss and can decide along in the workplace.

It is not socialism or (free) communism, but fascism and the indoctrination of capitalism that is radical.

There’s also decentralised planning. Seldom are even those axes on one line - they can overlap and have shades and nuances.

And we also should ask ourselves: what makes a free market? Is it a market in where cooperations are allowed to grow “too big to fail”, and have the power to seize entire societies? Or is it a regulated market in where this cannot occur?

Or a market in where the focus lies on social ownership? Is it therefore not the freest, when one can decide for and by themselves at work?

I don’t know what planet you live on that you think I advocate for an authoritarian government – but I prefer worker rights within a decentral framework, à la council or anarchist communism.

As for the American situation itself, assuming no such model, I think there’s more necessary, such as better urban planning with free, frequent, punctual and high-quality public transit and bicycle lanes. Not to mention the Supreme Court should be appointed solely through apolitical processes, not by executives. Its appointment requirements should also be determined apolitically. The president also should not exist at all.

No branch should have the power to increase its own power. The state is a centralised entity with a monopoly on violence; therefore the state must be abolished, and a “power vacuum” avoided through decentralised self-governance.