And the second guess is cartels without motive, just havin fun

And that’s also what Trump crowd promises their voter base.

The issue is how they are going to achieve that. The Soviet way was very inefficient, led to many unprofitable plants in the system and budget holes being closed with selling fossil resources to “capitalist” countries. And eventually tanked the USSR.

Succeeding in creating such industries in the first place and making them work is more likely with Soviet approaches. But making that a stable, efficient system is just impossible with Soviet approaches.

So they have to spend enormous funds at creating humongous processes and plants and logistics, and then prevent those owning said processes and plants and logistics from creating a bureaucratic-political deadlock which USSR was usually in. Any change would reduce some party’s power and increase another’s, so most ministries would oppose any change of status quo, and that is why all Soviet attempts at creating, say, a country-wide computer network to increase production and planning efficiency, or at optimizing military industries, or at standardization were killed.

USSR could have personal computers common enough, and not clones of Western successful designs, except clones were the only thing that wouldn’t cause such a deadlock. Domestic designs meant some ministry losing to some other.

There was a de-facto college ruling the country, with every party in that college having a veto right. Better than today’s Russia, of course.

Same even with fossil fuels export dependency, frankly - big companies today are not so different from USSR in terms of internal structure, yet they are efficient enough. It’s just that such a way of getting value would be, again, less likely to cause deadlocks.

The more intelligent (thus requiring standardization and competition, not just controlling land or oil and gas reserves) always lost to the more basic (sell something abroad, or choose a foreign design and clone it).

It’s a bit similar to how Byzantine empire killed itself, actually. Inviting foreign power to help in internal affairs became normalized. They didn’t even feel, apparently, slow and steady conquest by Turks whose help they’d employ against each other.

Yes, I missed that part, meant more the “working all your life on the same plant” thing.

The USSR didn’t have any limits to choosing an employment

You were distributed to a place by the state after finishing your education. If you left that place too soon, you’d be frowned upon and that’d be mirrored in your labor book (USSR had such a document, basically a dossier documenting your whole history of employment with characteristics, you could get such a “flattering” characteristic by a superior not liking you that you’d never be accepted to a good place after, and you couldn’t refuse or lose a record in your labor book).

and people weren’t forced to work anywhere.

Being unemployed for too long was literally, seriously, illegal in the USSR. Google for “тунеядство”.

People with something really bad in their labor books (say, dissidents) or some other necessary documents (being German after the war, being Jewish in a wrong period of time) had problems finding a place that would accept them, and would sometimes be prosecuted for being unemployed (that was usually informal employment, because you still had to eat something).

But in general yes, some kind of employment was always possible. Dying from hunger or being homeless was almost ruled out. Most of the population lived in some sort of “acceptable poverty” - conditions very bad by US measure, but with the previous correction. That’s sort of one good thing that most people from ex-USSR agree on.

Seems that they want to repeat the USSR of 70s, just capitalist and without the revolution and industrialization and mass repressions preceding stages, and rather right-wing.

Maybe they want that to avoid the same fate due to avoiding state capitalism and overregulation combined with politics inside the bureaucratic machine. If they are moderately smart.

Or maybe they just want to repeat the same track with modern technologies. Then it’ll suck.

That’d be the humanity.

Any system without wide popular involvement turns into shit.

Wide popular involvement requires simplicity and small number of levels, and ability to ruin and rebuild any part of the state apparatus quickly. So it’s limiting, but those limits are liberating, one can say.

At the same time there are no good systems for that wide popular involvement, one would have to pick between Switzerland and the idealized Soviet system, neither is perfectly functional.

I mean, I doubt he’d refuse her offering to SLAM him, I think there was no such offer.

Franco sort of was nicer.

We have decided together as a society, democratically, what those rules are.

No we haven’t. If you opt out of a vote, you are still treated as if you have an obligation to obey its result. That’s not how “deciding together” works. When you put magical words where something well-proven should be, you get Putin.

You can’t then say “I’m not playing by the rules of society” and expect people to just accept that.

Some existing mechanism spitting out rules is not “the society”.

There’s such a thing as mandate, and there is such a thing as a source of a right, and so on.

None of the laws you can find are well-founded in these. Official mechanisms make laws outside of their mandate all the time, and nobody cares about sources of right, replacing that logic with a stick.

Which means that a legally literate person understands everything can be contested. Calling that “not playing by the rules” is an attack at the dignity of your equal, you peer, who is trying to dispute philosophy and law with you. They may be clumsy, but their right to contest statements in those is never in question.

I mean, the USA has that 9th amendment, all it says is that rights are transcendent and the constitution can only confirm them, it’s not a source of rights and rights are not limited by what’s said in the constitution.

This is just amazing. Because without accepting that rights are transcendent you encounter contradictions only resolvable by violence everywhere.

And this “rules of the society” thing you’ve said means just that somebody is more potent at violence than me. It’s a return to barbarism.

Ah. I see. I have some remnants of irrational sympathy to Boers after reading Boussenard’s book for stupid boys in my childhood.

But yep, encouraging Afrikaners to come somewhere in bunches seems to be a red flag.

I think you’d have a pretty steep uphill argument to say that this administration is not a white supremacist (and misogynist) movement at its core.

Maybe you are right, it’s just hard to believe something to be that simple, all other cases I’ve seen have a saner core, just evil.

Sovereign citizens are supposedly individualistic and about freedom, “citizens of USSR” and Reichsbürger are a bit different.

Rather it is about illegitimizing the current government so that they (supposedly) do not hold power over you.

Would be a noble goal to bring obligations closer to something voluntarily taken and not just obedience.

There are various reasons why people would join a group like that, but a common one seems to be that they are running away from the consequences of their actions in one form or another. If the government is illegitimate, then the pain their society imposes (e.g. unpaid fines, mounting debt, etc) is also illegitimate.

Call a strong bad man (a politician in his own opinion) a bitch in presence of someone of his relatives, and the ensuing events will make you sympathize with them.

I thought Austria was the closest to any kingdom of Germany, except not for the last 100 years.

I’ve heard that you have a huge demographic of black christians there, so abortion restrictions would also mean more black babies. Same for pornography.

Immigration restrictions - a lot of people from “white” countries were immigrating too, so not sure.

I don’t think it’s that. It’s making more bullshit laws, because a law really puts pressure only at those not in power. Creating plenty of tooling to jail and suppress opponents.

And also some people might genuinely think porn is harmful and they’re sorta right, if you have proper sexual education and available contraception, porn is harmful and it’s better to reduce age of consent (so that teenagers doing teenage things wouldn’t fear getting jailed) and limit porn (it affects one’s brain similarly to other addictions). A bit like in Iceland maybe?

Dunno what “white culture” is, seems to be some American delusion. From here it seems you have in general the same culture, whatever the skin color. Even ebony slang, IIRC, is similar to how rural white people speak in some states south. I may be wrong, haven’t made the Columbus excursion yet.

The “GOP senator pegged by pink furries while his tradwife is being handled by caring black gentlemen” new trend?

“Step…”? “Schoolgirl”? “Interracial”? “Incest”? “Cuckold”? Something about police?

Or what?

I know it’s the reserve hole for Russia, must be all the criminal culture.

People deciding on this will have what they have, because it’s other people obeying them first and foremost.

They also will have physical money when you won’t. At worst it’ll be pieces of gold or brilliants or whatever.

And you being left to rot in such a collapse is no problem. See how Russia’s regime just threw out dozens of thousands lives of those they consider unimportant, to utilize in a war. Those were mostly uneducated men from poor and depressive areas, for whom the money for that contract was something enormous.

“The politicians” is not some rotated pool of people in reality, it’s the same mafia layer. Most of them are of the same parts of the societies, there are no random people in power, at least not anymore. Not in the last 20 years, I think.

So, the answer to your question : then nothing. Your riots are inconsequential, they don’t affect most of power, there are Pareto laws everywhere, so if actually important logistics and information flow don’t stop, there may be riots for years without interruption, not changing anything. You might have read something like this about Iran, riots are a usual event for them, even despite rioters being sometimes murdered by security forces, sometimes even machine gunned. If something like that causes a problem for the elites, you’ll see rioters being machine gunned in Europe.

The fact that we see this all means that somehow our side of the stakes has lost any leverage and it’s all changing for how it’s better for them. As simple as that. “Cashless society” is about that too - where all your money is controlled centrally and can be, well, momentarily taken from you, being just bytes of data on spinners somewhere, and all you do with your money is surveilled by default.

OK, this was alarmist, dramatic and soap-opera like. But I do think that, because with the previous steps of that path what I describe has already happened 100%.

The other way around, banning AfD is a very harmful thing to do.

The good thing to do would be to put its important figures in jail for mafia activity, which would also lead to many people outside of AfD, be a non-conditional improvement for the society and kill that party very quickly.

There is that mafia activity and it will be found if it’s looked for.

N-nah, random things where “normal people” think it’s normal to just stop and get stuck you’ll find the solution, because you are used to making hundreds of attempts at the same thing and they are not. Especially if nobody told you to help them with that. Especially when you have your own urgent tasks.

Well. I haven’t been diagnosed with ADHD, just BAD and ASD. But judging by comorbidity stats and such, I might be and that’d be good enough.

I don’t think the pic is wrong. It’s just that the middle dragon happens once a couple weeks or months.

What you describe as “severe OCD” I sometimes get - like didn’t ever visit the university library for my books even once in my second attempt, because I didn’t know where it was and didn’t understand quickly from asking and the information given seemed inconvenient and there seemed no correct moment to go there. Since it was night school, what I missed were a couple brochures and the rest can find in the interwebs, but still. Maybe that fits under ASD, just - it all is very individual, various traits in different combinations can be diagnosed differently, ADHD too has that problem of plenty of idiots thinking it’s not real and exists for lazy incoherent addictive people to get high, and BTW being lazy, incoherent and addictive is very ADHD, so why would that disqualify one … .

So - can we please not gatekeep? I thought I don’t have BAD and ASD when I was a teen, because I’m not diagnosed and it’s just chaotic personality, strange spirit and emotions and hormones. 12 years later I got diagnosed with those things exactly. About ADHD I heard someone else talking too, and thought it’s a little thing that passes when you grow up. Whatever.

Or a smart one knowing exactly what they can and can’t do touching Windows.