It's a bit strange, Proton has always been behind in the Linux community despite actually being overall respected for Privacy (not anonymity), but those are a major userbase.
I wish it was just Drive. They seem to acquire or put these new modules in half baked and they see little to no user end changes for years. I've been with them a long time and I like them but I increasingly dread their announcements when basic features aren't implemented.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Definitive of what capitalism is, this separation severely limits the scope of the political. Devolving vast aspects of social life to the rule of “the market” (in reality, to large corporations), it declares them off-limits to democratic decision-making, collective action, and public control. Its very structure, therefore, deprives us of the ability to decide collectively exactly what and how much we want to produce, on what energic basis and through what kinds of social relations. It deprives us, too, of the capacity to determine how we want to use the social surplus we collectively produce; how we want to relate to nature and to future generations; how we want to organize the work of social reproduction and its relation to that of production. Capitalism, in sum, is fundamentally anti-democratic. Even in the best-case scenario, democracy in a capitalist society must perforce be limited and weak."
There are very few purely capitalistic countries. All countries that I can think of use taxes and regulations to influence market equilibrium. „letting the market figure it out“ is usually the political expression for „I like the current state better than what the opposition proposed“.
I'm in a massive grain belt ATM, as a sign of the times I can't place whether that's a reference to GM crops or the immediate issue of fuel and fertilizer.
Capitalism (in the libertarian sense of the word) makes these "vast aspects of social life" off-limits to democratic deliberation in the same way it does for unrelated private corporations: without authorization from the rightful owners, it is supposed to be illegal (not to say that has stopped either).
She uses terms like "us", "we", "collective", but who are these? All the constituents, the people, in their totality, they are not, for people are not a homogeneous mass. In practice, it, along with democracy, just becomes a nice rhetoric device for stripping people of their rights.
Democracy was never really a good solution to an inclusive society-wide governance system. Most successful implementation even need to add limits to it to prevent the mob rule that's a feature to it. Some try to pretend it is anti-authoritarian, because the members get a vote. But that vote only matters when the voter is part of a majority. If they aren't, they might as well not even have it. That alone already creates a hierarchy. And it only gets worse: most people belong to minority of sorts, and they, by design, get alienated. This means that the doesn't really represent anyone... other than itself, very much like a corporation.
Which leads to the final point: capitalism (in the Marxist sense of the word) isn't antidemocratic. Democracy isn't in opposition to corporatocrocy, it requires a corporation large enough to own everything. Thus, dare I say, the democracy she seems to envision might as well be one of the forms of ultra peak capitalism.
The fascism of Europe in in the 1930s was EXPLICITLY anti-capitalist. You can read tons of statements by various prominent fascists about how capitalism was the tool of the British empire and "globalists"(they often used a different word). They viewed it as separating the people from the land. Capitalists were not in any way fundamental to the rise of Nazism.
If you're on about Pinochet, he only embraced market reforms 3 years after coming to power and came to power directly by a military coup. Business leaders had basically nothing to do with it.
From a Historical perspective, my learning makes me disagree with your statement - that fascism is in essence anti-capitalist.
> At the moment that the "normal" police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together
with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium – the turn of
the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie and the bands of declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat – all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy.
> The social democracy hoped that the docile conduct of the workers would restore the "public opinion" of the bourgeoisie against the fascists.
“Fascism: what is it and how to fight it”, Leon Trotsky
Mussolini, after political defeat as a socialist and editor of “Avanti!”, pivoted, started calling himself a “libertarian”, and courted capitalists (industrialists, oligarchs) to fund his newspaper “Il popolo d’Italia” (1914).
Ultimately, in Fascism, the only thing that truly matters is the regime itself, as demonstrated by fascist regimes that don’t fit so cleanly in our definition of Capitalism (like Argentina’s 1950s union based, military Peronist movement). From this perspective, I concede that Fascism is anti-capitalist in the sense that it is anti-everything that is not the regime.
However looking at the historical European, and contemporary American evidence, capitalistic mechanics and actors (ie. the oligarchy), seem to be the preferred route to it.
Trump is also often anti capitalist, between tariffs and government shares in business. There is what fascists say and what they do, and industrialists were often very good Nazis.
Lot's of political movements are/were anti-capitalist.
> industrialists were often very good Nazis
This is sort of banal. Lots of X "were good nazis". Where you could substitute scientists, elementary school teachers, trade unions, priests, bus divers, authors, political scientists, or farmers for X. It was a totalitarian society, everyone who wasn't on board was coerced by threat of violence to at least put on the outward appearance of being in support.
To this address the fact that Hegseth has repeatedly claimed that the US will not be constrained by stupid rules of engagement, that's more or less is an encouragement for war crimes.
> Shannon Bosch, an associate professor of law at Edith Cowan University, analyzed the strike from the perspective of international humanitarian law (IHL). Without drawing firm conclusions, Bosch noted that schools and children under 18 are especially protected under IHL, concluding that "the legality of that strike turns on whether the expected harm to children and the school was excessive compared to the military advantage gained by striking the target."[36] UN human rights experts characterized the strike as a potential war crime under the Rome Statute.[87] Regarding the attack, international humanitarian law expert Janina Dill said that attackers are required to "verify the status" of targets to avoid harming civilians. Beth Van Schaack said the US "should have known that a school was in the vicinity".[30] HRW said the same, adding that beyond the laws of war requiring precise intelligence, the strike's proximity to civilian infrastructure required advanced notice.[3]
From the wikipedia. Honestly with this kind of disregard for human life exhibited by the above commenter, the aggressors deserve everything thats coming to them. Absolutely disgusting.
What about unguided bombs? When they strike an apartment building, the person firing it can't be guilty. He never aimed at an apartment building. Right?
The real rule here is that only the people with precision weapons can be seen as guilty.
Exactly. And the inverse holds too. Precision capability raises the duty to verify, which is precisely what Van Schaack and HRW argue the US failed to do here.
If having precision weapons raises the duty to verify, does it follow that having unguided weapons raises the duty to not use them at all, since the operator doesn't know what it will strike?
IHL applies to all parties and all weapon types. Using unguided weapons in populated areas carries its own legal exposure, yes. But that's a separate analysis.
The discussion here is about a specific strike by the state with the most advanced intelligence and precision strike capability on earth, where multiple legal experts have concluded the duty to verify was not met. The question of what other actors do with less precise weapons doesn't mitigate that failure.
You may be right, but I think it's important to realize that there is no IHL and what these experts say doesn't change anything in practice. Pointing to some law that doesn't exist/not enforced only highlights how irrelevant it is. If there was a military force behind the pleadings of the experts of IHL, which would enforced it, then it would mean something. Alas, that's not the case.
The enforcement gap is real. That doesn't mean IHL doesn't exist.
Legal norms and international courts still influence state behavior, slow and relatively toothless as they may be. That's why you haven't seen Netanyahu or Ben Gvir doing much travel lately, for example.
That's why Israel and the US work so, so hard to delegitimize and demonize the UN, the ICC and the ICJ - and here you are helping them do it. Please, stop doing that.
Yes, there are real problems with IHL. Throwing it out and declaring it meaningless doesn't solve any of those problems, and makes many of them worse.
> Iran has made it quite clear that it is not up to the aggressors as to when this ends
Israel and the U.S. can absolutely end the war and leave a turd in the Gulf states' mess kits. The former would focus on Hezbollah. The latter start laying into Cuba or whatever.
That would work great politically for both - we shot some bombs are basically realized we killed a bunch of innocent people/children and realized we gotta jet now achieving nothing but making sure Iran can continue even stronger than before (after China replenishes what was “bombed” in a few months?
They can try. I don't think they'll like the consequences. Imagine if Saudi Arabia decides it's not friends with the US anymore and won't send any more oil here. That'll shake things up a bit, won't it? And Iran will be even more pissed off and determined to get a nuke than before, probably still choking the strait. You're talking about the US and Israel leaving the biggest, most obvious turd in history on the entire world's dining table.
Not saying it can't happen. There doesn't seem to be a bottom to the incompetence.
Sure. The point is strategic depth absolutely gives America this choice. The way it could actually happen is with a regime change. Special election in Israel or midterm full switch of the Congress together with war-powers resolutions in America.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for this. But it’s a bit silly to say Iran gets a veto on this at a kinetic level. They don’t. They have a de facto veto on strategic and messaging levels. But so did Vietnam.
> Imagine if Saudi Arabia decides it's not friends with the US anymore and won't send any more oil here
This isn’t a realistic threat. America and Israel are not in positions to be lectured by Riyadh. Like, we started this mess without bothering to materially loop them in.
Not sure what "lecturing" has to do with it. The US has the physical power to withdraw, and Saudi Arabia has the physical power to decide where their oil goes. That we started this mess is another argument for them finding a way to retaliate if we somehow decided to leave them hanging. I don't know if that's the most realistic consequence, but there would definitely be some that, at least if they were known in advance, would make us wish we had done something else.
That's the point. We have the power to leave, we absolutely don't have the power to leave without severe consequences. Similarly, if someone points a gun at you and tells you to stay, you still have the physical power to leave unless they also strapped you down. But that's cold comfort.
Sorta. There's different makeups for oil (light vs heavy, sulfer content, etc) with refineries being tuned towards a particular type. Retooling for a different type isn't necessarily economical so it depends on the types of oil being discussed.
reply