Put meals in them and give them to the unhoused?

What other supplies did the ax murderer stop for? And what “bizarre behavior” was there other than just carrying the ax? I feel like there must be more to it to have it not be dismissed, though our courts are weird right now.

The more important point here is that the victim tried to get the murderer arrested before this happened, but unfortunately acab.

Lol I’ve seen complaints both from people saying that you shouldn’t post paywalled articles, and from people saying they’d rather use their own method to get around paywalls

I guess time will tell. Though I’d still rather go for real socialism than progressivism

Um what?

Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom are some of the major leaders of the democratic party. They’re still running the party as they have been for the past few decades. Maybe accept that and stop supporting the party.

Who is in a leadership position in the DNC that isn’t a neolib?

Thanks global warming

True, no good reason for that

Definitely should’ve added that to my nuance. He and I are definitely not using the same definition of liberal.

Liberals already ruined this country

Is he wrong though?

Your verbose tear down of my use of “ability” seemed like an attack on the concept itself, especially when you combined it with attacking the concept itself. That’s also not where you started.

I do think money is the problem. Maybe love of money is more pressing at this time, but if we don’t keep the goal of eliminating money in mind, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere substantially different from where we’re at. But I’m willing to agree to disagree on that point for the time being.

I did not flood the dialog, I made no call to action, and I would’ve preferred critical analysis of the problems of money over talking about tense. If you want to have debates instead of arguments, I suggest examining your approach.

That’s a big stretch for a fucking tense. And when correcting is necessary, it should be done in such a way that actually strengthens the foundation of the point, assuming you agree with the goal. Otherwise what you’re trying to build will never come to fruition.

And above all jump down the throat of anyone who doesn’t enunciate a point perfectly, it should be our goal to discourage engagement as much as possible /s

I find it extremely ironic that someone who seems to have such strong opinions on communication is so bad at. You bring up not awful and not unheard of points about using conservative language to draw people to the left. That could’ve been a much more productive discussion.

The biggest reason I never told you what my plan was is because you never asked for it. The initial point I was making was about how money is bad and we don’t need it. Then you attacked my phrasing. You could’ve even briefly corrected my phrasing and then gone on to talk or ask about what the path to get there is. Instead you ranted about what tense I was using and how other economic systems don’t work.

The way you’ve communicated with me makes it seem like your goal is alienating people.

If you’re asking what I think the best way forward is, please just ask that from the beginning. My answer might’ve been that I’ve been working with the PSL and think they have a pretty good idea of a socialist America. Instead we’re bickering over the definition of “ability”.

Otherwise, you’re just arguing for the status quo that everyone hates.

We have to agree “money bad” before making a plan to move beyond it.

My talking about about the Incas and different non-monetary systems isn’t me trying to make a plan, it’s trying to show the possibility of the concept.

We’re never going to pull off a revolution without numbers. And only giving air to the “practical detail oriented” people while name calling the rest is a great way to make sure you never get those numbers.

And yes, there is a plan that I did mention, socialism. But that’s not how you phrased your initial engagement with my comment.

You are well beyond “most basic”, and also I disagree. Over-attention to detail is a very easy way to make nothing happen at all, which is currently killing people. I’m not the person who’s going to map out a detailed plan to get to that society, nor do I think an internet comment section is the place to do that. Especially when what we’re talking about is global revolution which absolutely necessitates broad engagement with many many people who don’t know all the details and really don’t need to. This is a very appropriate context to be talking in broad strokes. And if you want to wait for some perfect plan with every detail in exactly the right place, you’ll be waiting until the heat death of the universe.

You claim to want the same outcomes as me, but your method of naysaying and picking at every detail will mostly lead to people disengaging with the conversation entirely. That’s actively harmful to the movement’s progress.

We have to decide we want to do it before we can figure out how to do it. If we allow the current trend to continue, we’ll never get the opportunity to try out any of those alternatives. There is a definitive plan to live in a stateless classless moneyless society, it’s called socialism. It has an express goal of moving beyond a moneyed system. Focusing on how long and complicated the path could be is a great way to keep people disinterested in making any change whatsoever. I’m not saying you need to hide that part of it, but the way to inspire change is by keeping focus on what the goal is, and making it seem like it’s possible because it is.

Also it’s very easy to just say “____ is extremely vulnerable to corruption” to dismiss the whole idea, but you’re also just doing the same generalization I did but in a negative direction. Well money is extremely vulnerable to corruption and we have more evidence of that than most any other system.

Again, context matters. If someone reads an internet comment that says “humans have the ability to fly” and proceeds to jump off a building, that’s on them. Doesn’t change the veracity of the statement. If you would like to question how the statement was true, hopefully the commenter would be willing to elaborate with some examples (like how I sent you a list of economic theories that don’t involve money). The people who thought that humans could fly went to work inventing things to make it true. The people who didn’t think that were eventually proven wrong.

Also again, a full economic theory is way too complicated to get into the details in this context. I can say that my favorite theory is a library economy, but I would rather those logistics be discussed in a time and place with people that were positioned to make it happen.

But yes, I do believe that money is the biggest problem. I think it leads to more corruption than most other frameworks for resource allocation.

Wasn’t the point that nobody would want to mine? But Inca did mine silver copper and clay? Also they built aqueducts and pyramids which I’m sure were plenty back breaking. More importantly.

Not just America. There’s a global rightward shift largely fueled by moneyed interests. In the countries you mentioned, the rich are still getting richer and wealth inequality is growing. The wealthy countries all got that way because of colonialist oppression. We live under a global capitalist economy that is directly antagonistic to places that try to live apart from it. Cuba is probably the best modern example of an attempt to break from the capitalist hegemony, but they are punished and slandered for it. But they actually have better health outcomes and longer life expectancy than the imperial core of the USA. And yes they still use money because they live in a world that requires the use of money. That’s not saying moneyless society isn’t possible, but demonstrates the stranglehold money has over the world.

Yes, power hungry people will always be around, but the money system only feeds into that desire. Capitalism rewards and encourages greed. How are we supposed to keep the power hungry in check when the system is designed for them to flourish? I’d rather see a system that encourages collaboration. A system where reducing your working hours gives you opportunity rather than panic. I don’t think that’s possible with a system that revolves around money.