Accelerationism is a hell of a drug. You would have thought they would learn something from Weimar Germany, but no.

Oh I definitely think my position is more informed by anarchist traditions (eg, see my username lol) than socialist traditions, but it’s not exactly anarchism either. I’m never really sure what label to use tbh.

Fair enough, I guess I find myself in an awkward place between socdem and socialist then, but the more radical end of the reformist spectrum fits. Not sure what to call that, other than reformism vaguely inspired by more libertarian socialism and sub-municipalism.

Ah I see. I definitely have more learning to do than. In that case how is libertarian socialism socialism? Doesn’t that definition invalidate basically everything but vanguardism?

But that inherently means liberal, no? I was under the impression that social democrats supported private ownership of the means of production. If you believe that should be illegal doesn’t that mean you can’t be a social Democrat?

That’s true, but i don’t know if it’s fair to say that mandating employee ownership is anything other than socialist. Not Marxist, sure. Certainly leftist. But isn’t employee ownership and governance of the means of production, by definition, socialism?

I know, but that’s slowly changing. And I think that’s more true among the most politically engaged people. But that’s true of every group, if you go to in person conservative groups you’ll only find the worst of the worst on the farthest right. I’m not convinced it’s not the same phenomenon with socialists. But idk, I’m just talking out of my ass at this point honestly.

Agree, but socialism doesn’t have to be Marxist. Like, Rojava is pretty rad and that’s, if anything, just the most modern iteration of libertarian socialism.

Listen man I know I’m edging pretty close to “no true Scotsman,” but hear me out… it’s not that it wasn’t “true socialism,” but whether something is socialist economically isn’t necessarily tied to authoritarianism. Like, fuck tankies, but also I do think that combining market economics and truly representative democracy with proportional representation and freedom of speech and association with socialist ownership structures (as in the abolition of corporate governance from any input from, frankly, absentee “owners”) is the move. Socialism doesn’t have to be authoritarian, nor does it have to be against market economics. Ya know?

Oh I completely agree with you, the tariffs don’t make sense at all and some of the Annex II countries have even higher tariff rates than the Column 2 countries in the HTSUS. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make sense to say “Russia was left off the tariff list” in context. If you say “that list penalized random countries harsher than North Korea or Russia” that’s true, but “it’s not even on the list” is something that just gives conservatives fodder for their delusional narrative of liberals and leftists mindlessly freaking out. We’re freaking out with good reason, but “Russia isn’t on the list” isn’t exactly the good reason. The list making no fucking sense is the good reason.

Edited to correct a typo.

In some ways the tariffs seem Russia friendly (such as the astronomical tariff rate on Moldova for no good reason), but Russia isn’t included because it’s a “Column 2” country alongside Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea, and therefore all subject to the stiff tariffs we already impose on the worst of the worst. I just posted a similar comment in a similar post. Posts like this make us look bad, Russia wasn’t “spared” it was just already under column 2 tariffs. Please understand the tariffs before posting something like this, it makes us look bad to idiots on the right who already think we’re dumb.

Yes I know, I’m a lawyer lol. I’m just saying that, in effect, lower courts split frequently, and even when they ostensibly don’t split they interpret SCOTUS decisions in sometimes very different ways.

Yes I know, but (1) most lower court actions and decisions are never reviewed by SCOTUS and (2) it’s not like the lower courts were doing great and every once in a while SCOTUS overturned them. This has long, long been a been a very consistent and pervasive problem in the federal courts. It’s not as simple as “SCOTUS pulls the strings of the lower courts,” quite far from it.

It’s all courts, let’s not pretend it was different for most people 10 years ago.