If you are elected into a position where you can enact change, those who elected you have expectations of you based on the policy you supported during the election.

If, then, you turn around and do something completely different your actions no longer reflect the will of those who elected you, and you are not behaving in a representative manner and thus in an undemocratic way.

So ignoring anything specific to the American system, class interests, etc., it is a losing battle to try and be anything different from the status quo and getting elected by aligning yourself with the status quo.

A communist who gets elected by siding with a fascist is no longer a communist. A liberal cannot be a liberal if they denounce capitalism and side with socialists. They are fundamentally different ideas of who the political economy is designed for, completely contradictory ideas about hierarchy, property rights, human rights, and even what constitutes truth (liberal ideas are often utopian, like the “rational economic man”, and socialist/communist ideas are often based in the reality of the current and past material conditions, like believing people need homes and food, and a wealthy society should be able to provide these for itself, so people get homes and food. In contrast a liberal society would let the “market” provide these things in whatever way is profitable.

I mean, private ownership by those who don’t do the work or consume the product, yet get to make the decisions is to blame, yes. And that is capitalism by definition so… Capitalism is to blame…

The only identity politics I want to see is us against the ruling elite. Everything else is sparkling fascism.

Thank you!

There was an essay I came across sometime ago which spoke of organizing people for social movements, written from the perspective of someone actively engaged in the womens rights movement. In it were arguments against structureless organizations in favour of elected representatives accountable to the group.

Does anyone know where I could find that again?

I’m not siding with you, but I’d like to take your idea and make it… Useful.

Anytime someone engages in civil disobedience (like a protest) it is crucial that the correct people are targeted.

For example: if you want to stop your school from investing in Israel you target the administration (President, VP, investment managers etc.) and specifically those who make the decisions. This could be protesting at fundraisers so that it deeply affects the image of the school and those in charge, and serves as a threat of reduced funding.

You wouldn’t, for example, go into the classroom during a lecture and yell about Israel, making the lives of the students and professors worse. Why? Because the source of power and social change is the students, staff, and faculty, at the school. And annoying them creates more enemies rather than allies.

Always do a “power analysis” to know who to talk to and bring on your side, and who you need to disrupt in order to make the change. Otherwise we ignore class solidarity (yes, soak up the pun) and are doomed to fail

That’s too bad tbh. It seems like a trend following “good times” under capitalism

I know it’s not your point, but learning about the Nordics way of doing things was an entry point for me to actually learn about alternatives to capitalism. All I’m saying is it’s likely a great entry point of discussion with well meaning liberals, especially where they are rolling back safety nets.

I say this a lot, but interacting with those people isn’t for those people. It’s for the passive onlooker. It’s well documented that being exposed to the same information/idea repeatedly can make you believe that idea. And apparently (recently learned this) negative gossip can be completely derailed by a single dissenting voice early on in the gossip.

So, if possible (safety, mental health, emotional well being etc. willing) pushing back against these anti-social opinions in public spheres can prevent the spread of them.

Don’t give the fascists any platform. Let them know that nowhere is safe for them and their hate.

Yeah maybe, they do have the fastest gaming processors, and most efficient workstation processors if you use the x3d for workstations.

I hope not. I’ll likely be buying a bit of an upgrade in the next 6 months…

I was thinking this too. However, Amd still has a much lower market share than Intel so I suspect they will use this to claw back as much as they can. If they manage to get into the 40-60% range, then I would expect them to start playing with raising prices.

Alternatively they may release certain models at inflated prices to test the waters with increased pricing.

This is an armchair analysis of course so take it with a grain of salt

Within any job, there is what your role is on paper, and what you actually do over the course of a work day. Often times what you actually do is much more than “expected”. Work to rule means that you stick explicitly to what your role is, and the way the company expects you to perform your duties. Or rather, what they expect on paper.

An example: Unionized employees will often “work to rule” as one of the first steps aimed at putting pressure on an employer to negotiate. It’s an entirely legal thing to do, and serves to exemplify the disconnect between on paper job expectations (what you are paid for), and real expectations.

Thus, working as per your contract/job description with minimal deviation, will minimize how much you are exploited by ensuring you only do the work out are paid for.

The undiagnosed mental condition could be it tbh. I found it hard to learn anything I didn’t find really interesting (among other things). Boom, ADHD diagnosis in my thirties

Yeah, operating dangerously close to “work to rule” most days is a great way to minimize exploitation.

You are few to choose

The grown men are free to choose to make little girls cry, and little girls are free to choose to cry. What don’t you understand tankie?!?!

I prefer to call it democracy with American characteristics.

Yeah, the meme leaves out the part where they want to destroy Gaza so that they can rebuild on it for themselves without those pesky Indians. I mean Palestinians.

Yeah, and it’s fully legal for them to take any money you have and claim it’s related to drug money (even if you’re a citizen). You can always get it back if you fight for it but…

Don’t bring things with you that you don’t want taken from you (unless you have to).

You’re right. They should let a warmongering group point their missiles at them without recourse. If you ignore it, they will go away. Right?