I agree. That’s why AOC should focus on policies instead of identity politics. Because what I said is also true

Edit: I’m not saying she’s doing that, but dems have a history of trying and failing to fight cons on those terms

I don’t share the view that sexism is what is blocking a female president in the US; I think being an inauthentic corporate sellout is what has, so far, blocked a female president in the US.

I sort of agree, but there is definitely enough sexism to knock off a couple percentage points. It’s possible to win and AOC has the right populist appeal that might actually get her elected, but both her gender and her latine name will give her more work than a cishet white man.

These aren’t barriers, but the are hurdles.

Good to know, thanks

A skull and crossbones sounds like a symbol that was co-opted by nazis but not an explicit nazi symbol. I didn’t know that connection either. Without seeing it, that sounds more like a pirate symbol, or poison.

My head is loud with too many thoughts and thc makes it a bit quieter

I prefer thc to caffeine

We need to start shaming politicians who aim for being “bipartisan” and getting more politicians trying to be “nonpartisan”

Vote for your local independent

I kinda actually want to try that recipe

This feels like circular logic. There’s an innate tendency that humans can’t possibly avoid because stateless society is impossible on a large scale, and communism is impossible because of humanities fundamental need for hierarchies.

So it’s working, because of that area’s natural resistance to outside influence. Sounds like our experiment is going to be very enlightening

Just because I don’t think those theories are true doesn’t mean I think they couldn’t be proven true. Anarchism is also a political theory based on observable phenomena supported by empirical evidence. It is very contradictory to the theories you bring up which means they can’t all be true, even though they’re all published theories. We could do a big experiment to figure it out though. We’d just need to first get to a communist society, then we can see if it can sustain itself or if hierarchies naturally dominate without outside influence. I’m willing to be proven wrong, are you?

Yes you know all your vocab words. These are just philosophical theories that have plenty of detractors. They aren’t true just by virtue of their existence. And I think the political party of the source is relevant when it’s a political theory. It says a lot about the conclusions that theory leads to, and when it leads to fascist Italy then clearly something went wrong

No that’s not what happened

I think it’s a little funny that you’re arguing for percentages while claiming we already have that and look how great that is.

A key element that makes it socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, we don’t have close to that in any of the countries you’re talking about. Social programs are not socialism

Oh you’re right, I have total faith in the “iron law” created by someone who went on to join Italy’s National Fascist Party

So if we argue against hierarchies, we’re still arguing against capitalism and still arguing for communism, just more of an anarchocommunism. Communism isn’t just the countries that tried, just like capitalism isn’t just the usa

You’re right about the phrase, but I also disagree and think it’s money itself

Money doesn’t give an ability for anything, it creates a barrier that only it can open

A lot of them probably have skipped meals, but not because they couldn’t afford it

Our nature isn’t greed, that’s just what capitalism demands. Our nature is cooperation, otherwise we never would’ve created society in the first place.