Suffer not the heretic to live.

My armor is contempt. My shield is disgust. My sword is hatred. In the Emperor’s name, let none survive.

Real grimdank hours going on here.

but.but but works so well on poor people. why isn’t working on nazis!!??!?!

Dawn of War 1. Better yet just computerize table top. I’m antisocial :(

I was a really young nerdy kid, and coming from the Soviet Union like the only thing I cared about was computer. I was obsessed with computer since playing Doom as a kid in a cyber cafe. I got my first computer at the age of 8-9 after we had immigrated. I was about 10 years old when I was trolling AOL chat rooms by myself… and I had a lovely 640x480 web cam… and yeah. A lot of this brings up uneasy memories.

I think the horny categorization does fit me. I’m not like a gooner or anything but my partner would agree 100% with the statement: “thinks I’m about to pounce on them and always waits for me to initiate everything. Why people basically see horny as one of my personality traits.”

I don’t experience issues with non-sexual intimacy, but I wanted to let you know that you’re not alone!

General Strikes are escalated to not planned. That’s why the AFL the most idiotic union basically banned escalations into a general strike by requiring striking locals to have national authorization or risk getting kicked out of the union. This was in response to the Seattle General Strike which happened in Feb 1919 and the AFL amended the constition in June 1919. Similary Taft-Hartley which outlaws general strikes in the US was passed in 1947 was a response to the Oakland General Strike of 1946.

Also lol at #3 what is this? 2012?

The reason I disagree is that “dog/cat food” implies it’s something that is widely eaten culturally, a “default meal” of sorts. I don’t think pate fits the bill there most Americans cannot handle offal. Nuggies sure, but not really pate.

he believes it would actually change things if the facts came out and it was actually the CIA behind it

Ah yes the classic “force the vote” argument.

I think that criteria is a bit too loose. In the American context liver pate would qualify.

There has never ever been a LGBTQ Nazi ever. Nobody who has ever followed National Socialism was queer (ignore Rohm). Nobody who ever was a fascist was queer (just ignore Milo, Fuentes, Caitlin Jenner, Blair White, Anne Marie Waters, Alice Weidel, Peter Boykin). Outing homosexuals so they face precarity in a hostile world has only been used as a cudgel by “bad guys” and never by “good guys”. This is so obvious, ideologically sorted, and perfectly politically unmessy. Excuse me while I shop at Target on the day of our KWEEEN June 1st.

Should be fine. Taste may be every so slightly affected if you don’t wash them. They’re not really being cooked, and the smoke isn’t concentrated enough at that distance to “cold smoke” them. In a perverse way they might actually come out better because smoke carries potassium which is part and parcel of plant nutrition.

In reality given the last several years of crazy North American wildfires almost everyone has eaten produce that was affected by wild fire smoke in this way.

if time travelers kidnapped a few thousand scientists, engineers, and so forth from the present and took them back thousands of years and dropped them naked in the post-glacial northern european steppes, … they certainly aren’t building a chip manufacturing plant to start making computers.

You can blame British adventure novels for this bullshit idea. Every other day a Kickstarter of “THE END OF THE WORLD BOOK WHERE YOU CAN BUILD COMPUTER FROM SAND AFTER NUCLEAR BOMB” gets launched.

the apparent contrast of “low-tech” and “high-tech” is only going to feel like a contradiction to people (like me) who have internalized liberal economic theory based on the notion that value is ultimately created by the very smartest of fail-children having the very best ideas.

As an immigrant form the former Soviet Union, it’s not liberal economic theory notions. Plenty of Post Soviet Liberal morons out there with the same notions. It’s living in a rich country where you are isolated from the practicalities of the systems that shape your life.

This Archer clip on the origin of meat (before it becomes dictatorial lulziness) sums up the distinction nicely:

https://youtu.be/JHMJxFICUjk?t=57

One of the things that most Soviet Intelligentsia complained about was the fact that as students they had to work on Kolhozes (communal farms) during college summer break. But because of that everyone in the Soviet Union effectively had an intimate and direct relationship with their food supply chain. At one point (when all forms of back filling fail e.g. trade, stockpiling, etc), someone has to pick the food, fire or no fire. Otherwise nobody eats. The practical problem here is how to make that as fair and as safe as possible. This is why communist theory is the theory of misery.

The main thing to understand about ALL modern monetary theories is that all monetary systems practically borrow from the future based on the idea that initial investments into a technology/product/service are the most expensive and future developments lower the cost of production.

This idea is patently false, because it assumes that the economic inputs into those production systems themselves are:

• infinite
• become cheaper over time

Systems built on the Labor Theory of Value also typical fall into this trap as the underlying labor cost changes due to technological advanced tended to decrease in the last several centuries. The practical issue here is that most monetary systems and theories are built from small example bases of limited experiences (especially in the post WW2 West) and then supposed to work in the abstract. Having a theory of value is not actually important in a capitalist society. Having a theory of value is actually detrimental to the economics of a capitalist society because it binds arbitrage, and it prevents capitalist societies from uneven extraction and development (also not inherently a bad thing). Most argumentation against theories of value doesn’t come from a scientific place to be honest. Speculative value isn’t inherently wrong or bad either it just has different side effects. Labor theory says that changes in labor cost change the value of a commodity, speculative theory says that changes in attitudes or needs for a commodity change its value. Labor theory of value cannot fully encompass waste, and when it creates waste it creates waste because of the attitudes/needs of the people in the economy (e.g. we make expensive widgets no one buys because we need jobs – remember the Soviet Union needed to create make work jobs because unemployment was illegal and just giving people money did not sit well with societal values the way they were. Arguably state capitalist societies would do better with speculative value and just giving people money and letting them decide how to spend their time – given good communal opportunities – rather than creating make work jobs. The issue is that labor theory of value requires the bootstrap of a developed industrial economy, every single person’s basic needs met, a socialist society that isn’t driven through individual envy, and voluntary vocational system to work properly without falling into contradiction. That’s a tall order, the social aspects of which, need generations to be built without resorting to punitive legalism.).

MMT itself falls into the above traps, but I think the interpretation here is incorrect. MMT is not money printer go brrr. MMT says that money printer is going brr and the government refuses to change who can access the print tray. The vast majority of money in the US is created not by the federal government but by the constituent banks of the federal reserve. This is quite literally the apex definition of “private capital” a group of unelected, unaccountable organizations headed by defacto oligarchs that effectively can decide for what purpose society creates money. MMT in practice has the same guard rails and pitfalls as the existing system. MMT simply says because monetary creation is happening in the private sector the government is de facto backing that creation through various programs, new legislation, and other assurances. In essence the government is creating this money by proxy anyway and it should take an active role in money creation for the purposes of social benefit.

I think the biggest criticism of MMT is that it cannot work in an under developed country, and arguably it cannot work outside the specific parameters of the United States and the petro dollar, that is absolutely correct.

MMT is the iteration of using “tricks of circulation” to save Capitalism, similar to views espoused by Proudhon which Marx critiqued in Capital and the Gundrisse.

This also absolutely correct but it is not a bad thing. The reality to “building” socialism is that societies must keep advancing, MMT despite being riddled with contradictions, overly specific to the US empire, and ultimately a rhetorical accounting trick does seek to create an evolution of spending on public good rather than a devolution of the US monetary system where both the federal government and the constituent banks of the fed are simply being exchanges where public money is funneled into private coffers.

I think it’s really important to separate the theoretical complains from the practical purposes here. In order to align systems without destroying them you have to make changes in steps. For a Marxist perspective, MMT is simply a step. So ultimately from a Marxist perspective what is the use of MMT?

• It’s a fun little troll that’s true and you can have fun with
• If a Marxist political party was the head of the US tomorrow without a vanguard revolution it would be a good step in a set of reforms
• It’s quite literally a theory of state capitalism if you cut private property out of the deal

If you boil it down all Marxist critiques of MMT are “it’s not communism”, which is true on its face. Ultimately neither was any state capitalism under Soviet like systems and neither is the current Chinese economic system. We can argue about the “intent” of various MMT theorists if we want to put this discussion into a China-style frame (e.g. we intend to build communism post capitalist development), but that’s putting the cart before the horse.