But you see you don't actually understand how lawmaking works there's this set of procedures and dates that BLEAAAARGHHHHHvomitvomit

Neoliberalism is an economic genocidal ideology predicated on maintaining capitalism, and capitalism is the impoverishment, oppression and death of poor people because that's the OBJECTIVE of capitalist ideology. It's a malthusian ideology.

Neoliberals are the original Alt-Right
Capitalism has ZERO todo with "markets vs. no markets," or "central planning vs. decentralization." That's *propaganda*. That's a diversion.

Capitalism is the NAME OF THE ABSENCE of any support for poor people. In capitalism, giving ANY power to poor people is a CRIME.
Capitalism has an *exception* to the strict forbiddance of giving any economic power to the 99%, and that is the concept of "Merit."

If you act as a SLAVE (wage slave), then you can get some crumbs to *temporarily* avoid your death. While you are mechanically useful.
These fucking Neoliberals which are 99% of the Democratic Party in the US are all POSING as nice people. They are not. They are all sociopaths.

This economic fascism is so thoroughly normalized in the US that nobody has a concept of what capitalism is.
The fact that capitalists -- the owners of the undemocratic workplaces -- are all rich on the backs of their workers is also a *diversion*.
If a capitalist owner suddenly decides to run a virtual co-op where he earns all his personal profits but gives it all away in bonuses to all the workers, and if he actually listens for what workers want, implementing a de-facto democracy, he will be *targeted and destroyed*.
This happened in Brazil mid last century. The decent industrialists were all persecuted and dispossessed.

"Communism" / "Socialism" is an accusation used against anybody that is NOT onboard the classist Malthusian genocide program.
Capitalism AS AN IDEOLOGY, as a belief system, as "neoclassical economics," as neo-liberalism, must be exposed for the fascist right-wing genocidal malthusian market-based religious ideology that it is.
The "Market God" of capitalism is NOT an exaggeration. The robes of this ideology that the high priests use are the suit and tie, the corporate attire, the BMW.

Why do you think people were giving Andrew Yang a hard time for missing a fucking tie? Because it's a literal church.
Yang was saying, signaling:

I'm not part of this bullshit fundamentalist malthusian "Market" church that has taken over the secular institutions by *disguising itself* as a secular belief. I'm just a human being.
Yang is an anti-malthusian person; he is not a capitalist by definition, because capitalism requires poverty. Someone who wants to abolish poverty is not a capitalist.

That's not how the word "capitalism" is used. Because people are idiots. But you are not. Now you know.
Capitalism is a dirty, dirty word. Do not attempt to use it in a positive sense. Do not attempt to use it to denote anything positive, unless you know what you're doing.

More from Fabiana Cecin 🏴 🌹

More from Law

This is what he wants to do.

No matter how this trial plays out, the US will remain divided between those who choose truth, Democracy, and rule of law and the millions who reject these things.

1/


The question is how to move forward.

My mantra is that there are no magic bullets and these people will always be with us.

Except for state legislatures, they have less power now than they have for a while.

2/

The only real and lasting solutions are political ones. Get Democrats into local offices. Get people who want democracy to survive to the polls at every election, at every level.

It’s a constant battle.

3/

Maybe I should tell you all about Thurgood Marshall’s life to illustrate how hard the task is and how there will be backlash after each step of progress.

4/

Precisely. That's why Thurgood Marshall's life came to mind.

We are still riding the backlash that started after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

That's why I keep saying there are no easy

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x