this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
1110 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

59724 readers
3566 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, Im not some "hurr durr both sides are equal" moron. Both sides do have issues, but they're not equal. The left is on the correct side socially but they often have an incredibly naive view of how the world functions, often operating on "why can't we all just get along and be rich together?" Levels of fantasy.

However, the US right is socially authoritarian and wants to oppress anyone who doesn't fit a christo-fascist perspective, and their economic viewpoint is messed up due to conflation of where wages are derived from. So they fail both sides of the coin whereas progressives only fail on economics.

If I HAD to take one of two sides I'm going left, because I refuse to abide by people who hate those that are different, and I have a lot of gay and trans friends. However I don't agree with the lemming philosophy of Auth-Left being the solution to our problems.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like Socialist Libertarianism.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Is it really "socialism" if I think the tax burden should fall on the land owners exclusively and the laborers should derive the larger portion of their labor value than the capitalist that simply made their work more efficient with their capital? Due to wages driving from labor value increasing capital?

We likely wouldn't even need social safety nets if the capitalists weren't taking the largest cut on the pretense that wages derive from capital, and the market wasn't being driven by those with excess wealth.