all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I disagree, we don't have to sacrifice social benefits and public service to divert all the money to the defense. We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!

    Neo-liberals are using the current situation as a new justification for the same shitty policies they are pushing for 3 decades. No change in strategy, just a new excuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Necessity maybe yeah, but it didn't end well last time. Also it can be a permanent situation if the economies of France and Germany see development through militarism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ...and we'll have Putin and Trump to blame for it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    I mean, for people in countries that were prey for French or German militarism this is like saying it doesn’t matter which predator is going to eat your pet hamster. They might lose this game of fascist whack-a-mole eventually - what then?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm pretty sure 1953 was 72 years ago.

    Nobody said it, I don't actually care it's just a compulsion.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Rearmament isn’t optional but you can serve all of the tables if you have a fair taxation. Military specifically should be funded from wealth rather than income, after all military protects wealth while regular Joe can click the computer at a company regardless of who’s in charge.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I thought that was the cops' job, military protects the working class as well.

    while regular Joe can click the computer at a company regardless of who’s in charge.

    Elaborate please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    There are people who work but don’t own things. There are those who own things but don’t work. In case of war those who own things lose due to destruction war causes. It’s in the interest of those who own things to finance their defence. Situation of those who don’t own things doesn’t change that much, they’ll pay rent to someone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    In my experience the vast majority of the upper class are the least interested in defence. They just move their money and movable assets somewhere far away.

    Situation of those who don’t own things doesn’t change that much, they’ll pay rent to someone else.

    If there is anything left to rent. As you said, the destruction leaves very little untouched, and then they either have to move or stay homeless.

    Progressive taxation is still the best move imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    If there is anything left to rent. As you said, the destruction leaves very little untouched, and then they either have to move or stay homeless.

    Which they were always at risk of and had to account for even without war. It’s not a binary thing of course though.

    Progressive taxation is still the best move imo.

    I’m for all kinds of taxes if that wasn’t evident enough :D

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Don’t you love how conservative voters are pro or anti war, depending on what their overlords say?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    look how emaciated education is there with that cobweb on the globe at their table.

  • source