How are you supposed to keep them from passing on the cost of taxes to their tenants?
You have to realize that they still "own" a limited resource that lends them power to leverage over others. The only way you make this abuse go away is to have the people collectively own the land. Any accommodating regulations you place on landlords will only be temporary until they are worn down and removed.
They could not have won. Their army and their "reich" collapsed the moment they suffered a major defeat. The Soviet Union by comparison suffered horrific defeats and losses in the early stages of the eastern front and the nation rallied back and won the war. Why couldn't the Germans do this? Because their "reich" was nothing more than plundering Europe, and it fell apart when it encountered its first test of resilience. The thousands of miles of captured territory was quickly lost despite plenty of opportunities to build and create contingencies in the event their offensives failed. They didn't do it. They didn't have a back up plan, or a way to transition their military into fighting a war of attrition.
The militant fascism required them to invade everything and everyone as quickly as possible. To try to fabricate a scenario where the Nazis made smart and long-term war winning decisions is to effectively make them not Nazis to begin with. You can argue that they may have had more success if Rommel was given command of everything but he never would have been able to create the political movement that gave him the tools in the first place. To speculate further is to create an alternate history scenario where everything went perfect for the Nazis and they had a dramatic regime and ideology change in the midst of their conquests.
Victory for the Nazis was total domination and nothing else. Conquering and holding Europe alone would never have been seen as "winning the war", at least as far as they were concerned.
The argument can be made that any military force could have won if they just made no mistakes and got lucky everywhere they needed to. Despite having most of the cards in their favor early on, they lost. That isn't a reflection of how close they were to victory, but how fragile their victories had been.
I have been enjoying pop os. A lot more plug and play than I was expecting.
*Me saying a fairy tale scenario that will not exist under capitalism.
*Reality standing behind me.
You can't and wont deliver a long term solution for "middle class" people by working within that system. The goal of capital is ultimately to have as few as people as possible with as much power as possible. Any middle class you are talking about will become lower class and poverty class with enough time. It absurd that you can look at the current system and believe that it would ever deliver on your promise. Believing that it would work with an uncorrupt government is trying to say that there is an "ideal" version of capitalism out there and we just need to do that.
You are looking at the only version of capitalism that exists. Any regulations, safeguards, and safety nets will be corrupted and withered away eventually because the people and institutions that supposedly uphold these ideals will be rewarded for doing so. You create a competitive class system and you are shocked and outraged when people cash it out to gain, or maintain their social class to avoid becoming lower class.
They can't. I guess the game is over.
What are liberals supposed to do if they can't just label something to dismiss it?
If you really think that bots are this effective, then why don't liberals create their own bots?
If you think they don't work then what is your problem with them?
I sometimes fear reading stuff like this, that was generated from applesauce brains is going to turn my brain into applesauce as well.
"Don't make my favorite childhood story political."
You mean besides the fact that it is explicitly a political story?
Thank you for this.
If you understand that Russia is just doing the same thing America usually does it might start to make more sense. Western liberals rabidly defending Ukraine and calling Russia evil is amusing considering they have spent their lives benefiting from the same brutal practices on other countries.
But for a better understanding of this, Russia has for a long time considered Ukraine as effectively their territory or one of their puppet states, much like America does with others. What you are seeing with this invasion is the result of a slow erosion of this notion by western influence. Think of this as a long game aggression similar to how it would be if foreign powers convinced one of the United States' territories to try to secede. That is what people refer to when they speak of NATO aggression. It is all about weakening Russia by removing one of their holds on what used to be their empire. Now they are moving to protect their interests.
You may cry foul at this, but the US would likely find reasons to invade one of it's neighbors (Canada or the United Mexican States) if there was a communist regime change that was propped up by China. You would likely happily argue that the United States has the "right" to per-emptively invade and depose the hostile government to protect its interests. It is strange that you would accusingly ask if Ukraine has the "right" to defend itself, when it could be easily argued that Russia has the "right" to invade. Zelensky is seen as a regime change by Russia and they seek to depose him and bring Ukraine back into their fold.
Considering their prior status, it could be framed that Ukraine is fighting for it's "independence" from Russia, but at the expense of becoming under the thumb of NATO and the rest of Europe. NATO's ambitions for Ukraine are no more honorable than Russia's, and it is the Ukrainian (and Russian) people that will suffer by being caught in the middle of bourgeoisie power struggles between superpowers. The depiction that NATO is merely helping Ukraine defend itself out of the goodness of their hearts is a disingenuous framing of NATO's intentions.
In the end it doesn't matter if a country has a "right" to defend itself, but rather if they are capable of doing so. Ukraine has been on paper an independent country after the collapse of the USSR but functionally seen as still property of Russia, at least notionally. That has weakened to the point where war has broken out. A key take away from understanding the leftist position regarding this war is that we are not very invested in it and don't feel we need to pick a side, but if you really want us to pick a side, most often we will pick Russia. Not because we love Russia, but because we hate NATO.
You mean this ridiculous freakshow fight that had no chance of happening has been a ruse for attention all along?!
"Black people will come out in droves to vote for Trump because he is a criminal... like them."