- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #176
No organ of the state serves the public, and never has. It serves the state.Also who's interest does the security state serve, certainly not the American publics?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No organ of the state serves the public, and never has. It serves the state.Also who's interest does the security state serve, certainly not the American publics?
No, in the US it serves capital. That's the purpose of the state in capitalist societies, to serve the interests of the ownership class.No organ of the state serves the public, and never has. It serves the state.
Semantics. The US state predates its capital and has always served itself, and only served capital subsequently to strengthen itself. Facebook, Google et al are the best organs of US power projected overseas. It’s why the Chinese so strongly refuse both.No, in the US it serves capital. That's the purpose of the state in capitalist societies, to serve the interests of the ownership class.
No it doesn't.Semantics. The US state predates its capital and has always served itself, and only served capital subsequently to strengthen itself. Facebook, Google et al are the best organs of US power projected overseas. It’s why the Chinese so strongly refuse both.
It’s origin has much, much deeper roots.The US state was literally created to serve the interests of mercantilist landholders mad about being taxed.
Cultural Marxism is a repurposed Nazi dogwhistle, being a spin on cultural Bolshevism.
And the same attacks broadly directed at "Cultural Marxists" now, were those levelled at alleged "Cultural Bolsheviks" in the 30's. That they are undermining Western or European society, that their values and social product result in degeneracy and that their mode of assault is through culture mixing and subversion.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim
But it's odd seeing avowed capitalists blame Marxism for capitalism at work. Tech giants see the cost in terms of advertisers and a broader user base, for allowing reckless conspiracy mongers like Jones to use their platform to incite violence or hatred. Banning him isn't "cultural Marxism", it's a purely financial decision. You wan't unrestrained capitalism, you don't want government interference in markets, in legislating codes of conduct for media or media platforms, well this is what it's boot looks like.
What are your thoughts on alluding ill-intent on people who read to children in public libraries for free?I don’t think it’s overstated. People can and do lose their livelihoods for transgressing speech codes.
Eg https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tax-expert-fired-for-saying-trans-women-aren-t-women-tpqgnm9vj
What ill intent?What are your thoughts on alluding ill-intent on people who read to children in public libraries for free?