I would recommend thinking about it this way: whenever a comrade is "wrong" about something, literally anything, how much do you make it your business to "correct" them?

When it comes to socialism and organizing, the answer must always be, "to the extent it improves the organization or helps them personally". A sign of a dysfunctional social space is that people are constantly getting in each others' business for no reason other than that they are "wrong" about something. Dysfunctional socialist spaces will even dress this up in left language and (ironically enough), for example, say it causes disunity for a member to be dating a liberal. Of course, the disunity comes from the org trying to control a member's romantic life.

In this scenario, what is the existence of socialist Christians here actually doing to disrupt you or others? Are there certain problematic posts that inspired your question or did you just see "Christian" and start attacking? Are there a bunch of Calvinists in there doing Calvinism to us? Do you think you might actually be the source of disruption in thus scenario?

I think the insider trading is ancillary. Trump has a nonsense idea about tariffs that he's pushing through. His entire circle (and Congress) just aren't letting a grift go to waste.

Get organized and practice cardio. An individual with a gun is likely to just get shot.

Germany is cosmopolitan, it has many types of food from all around the world and a pretty big group of vegans spicing things up. Though when th3y "Germanize" a dish it always makes it worse.

I think they can hide behind copium right into complete destitution.

War has been merged with PR for quite a long time, particularly in the empire. An omnipresent example is relabeling the war department and war itself as "defense", or in this case "deterrence", even though it is used exclusively for wars of aggression.

Show the posts and comments and all will be revealed.

The "political" mods of lemmy.world always call inconvenient facts, "misinformation". They're trying their best to reproduce the liberal fact-checker culture of around a decade ago where there were liberal nannies evaluating posts for left wing thought and helping to maintain their walled garden of mainstream propaganda. There still are such nannies, of course, but they're more openly reactionary now. This kind of person thinks that if Snoped wrote an article about it, that's all there is to it.

Selectively incurious and intellectually lazy, the real impetus behind this form of liberalism is a simple contradiction: their entire political philosophy is predicated on them being a good and correct and moral person with good and correct and moral views, totally unassailable, but their beliefs are incoherent and often disagree with reality and they spend very little time actually learning and understanding the topics they weigh in on. And they're used to contrasting themselves with more openly reactionary people that are even less likely to be in alignment with reality, which really makes them feel good and correct and moral. So when presented with left thought, i.e. fsr more coherent and informed opinions, they have a little crisis in their identity and lash out, looking for some way to shore up the opinion they hold after all of five minutes of research. Failing that they just act like a big baby.

In the conditions under which the CPC made these strides, the proletariat was much smaller than the peasantry. In a typical ML analysis, the peasantry have a petty bourgeois character, or at least adopt one once liberated from landlordism. This was one of the major contributions of Mao's CPC to ML theory, as even though the Russian Empire had a similar dynamic, it was not as extreme as China's. In the Russian Empire there had been kulakizatiom to bring more petty bourgeois character to the peasantry and undermine the landlords and the proletariat was larger. China's peasantry were often basically serfs.

This is my way of saying that basically every country has enough proletarians (we can quibble about how prole they are) compared to past successful revolutions. What we run up against most often is a deeply propagandized population that has some kind of dependency on financialization and imperialism, where they receive an "artificial" experience of their class, one heightened. Not quite a labor aristocracy, but one that fails to develop even vulgar class consciousness because nothing happens to them that can break through the propaganda. The coworkers that think unions are for lazy people and just accept being fired as a fact of life, as they are sure they will be employed again very soon, their industry being "in demand", propped up by imperialist technological advantage or some insurance grift. The PMC technocrat that, at least for now, believes they can help solve climate change for a decent wage if they just make good enough slide decks (while their paycheck actually comes from capitalist lobbyists). The retail worker that knows conditions are bad but just puts up with it because they are young and believe the line that it's a practice job and they'll naturally get paid enough and work in better conditions as they get older. It's a house of cards that I believe will crumble when imperialism becomes less effective and the expectations of these workers get a reality check. This is what I would usually call proletarianizatiom of the imperial core, it's making proles prevented from developing class consciousness by confidence in future rewards become instead more directly aware of the bum deal, of seeing their exploitation.

The real challenge is how we will contend against modern fashy reactions to what will probably be seriously incompetent first stabs at real mass left organizing.

Anyways sorry for the really long response. I hope it is relevant and makes sense.

ONE.

THOUSAND.

PERCENT.

Remember when Biden just plain didn't nominate someone to the board?

Without being greedy

Costco has the same profit onus of every other company it just uses a slightly different business model that means ita members get huge volumes of cheap goods. That's it.

It is exactly as greedy as every company anykne dislikes. The oppression of capitalism is not due to greed, it is a built-in mechanism that profits must be maximized. It doea not matter how highly a business owner or customers think of the company, it is a profit-generating machine or it will die.

Example: Costco always fights the union.