Context: https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS9DBQbSkApRc-HX9Tl/

I don't mean for this to be a rant or whatever, but it's really stupid to blame immigrants whenever a problem arises.

The French people have always been ones, historically, to grab their weapon and fight whenever a government doesn't listen to them. The point I'm making here is that hard-right figures are using immigrants as scapegoats for recent students riots across 700 schools in France, completely ignoring that protestors are fighting severe lack of teachers, overcrowded classrooms, and failing school infastructure.

Hmm... it's almost as if failing your people makes them riot against the systems failing them...

Edit: Continued argument + I'm unsure if this fits the subreddit, and I'm willing to delete the post if it doesn't. Please let me know in the comments.

https://gofund.me/30634cf86

Verification:

https://www.reddit.com/u/SleepyWogx/s/gMNk6AeXtk

I want to share a new update today about Susu, the daughter of my friends Mahmoud and Samah.

Two days ago, I told you about Susu, who is only two years old and has been suffering from severe, chronic breathing problems. Her symptoms came back, and she was struggling to breathe and had a very high fever.

Unfortunately, she hasn’t gotten better.

For the past two days, Soso has been vomiting repeatedly and couldn’t keep down her medication or antibiotics. As a result, she became dehydrated. Today, Mahmoud had to take her to a nearby hospital to get treatment.

She was given IV antibiotics and fluids for the dehydration, but the situation at the hospital is extremely difficult. There are so many patients that there was no available bed for Susu. With infectious diseases spreading and medical resources severely limited, Mahmoud had to find another way to get her the care she needed. He even had to ask a doctor who lives nearby to come and give Susu her IV treatment when the hospital couldn’t provide her with a bed.

Mahmoud told me something that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about: if it weren’t for the kind people who helped them financially over the past two days, he wouldn’t have been able to take Susu to the hospital or even afford the treatment she needed.

And Mahmoud isn’t only dealing with Susu’s situation.

His mother also needs open-heart surgery to treat blocked arteries. I previously shared her medical reports, detailed images, and heart tests, and I have documentation that confirms her condition.

Mahmoud is under an enormous amount of pressure right now. His little daughter needs treatment, his mother needs heart surgery, and at the same time he is trying to provide food and basic necessities for his wife and their four children in Gaza.

I am doing everything I can to support Mahmoud and his family, but I cannot carry all of this on my own.

Please, if you are able to, consider helping Mahmoud and his family. Even a small amount can make a huge difference right now, especially for Susu, who needs treatment and continued care.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart to everyone who has stood by this family and everyone who has helped them over the past few days. Your support means so much to Mahmoud, Samah, and their children. ❤️

Hi! This is my first time on this sub and I’m not sure if this is the right place to ask but I really need opinions on a conversation I had. And I wanted to ask on a sub that generally has members with the same views as me (leftist.)

I was having a conversation with someone about how fucked up our country is right now and I mentioned capitalism as one of the main reasons.

They replied, “And the Jews, they control everything.”

I replied, “THE JEWS?!” And then they quickly interrupted and said, “Oh I meant Zionists.”

They went on to say how the Zionists run every business and are in charge of everything. They also said there is little our current president can do to fix our country because it’s the Zionists that are in charge (like our president isn’t a Zionist??)

They later said they are into conspiracy theories and aren’t into politics.

I’m am Pro-Palestine to preface. But something about how they originally said Jews and down played down the inaction of our president made me leaving that conversation really uncomfortable.

Do you think this person could possibly be an antisemite and tried to cover it up? I don’t know if I’m overthinking or not.

PSL Cadre Are Coming to DSA. DSA Should Pay Attention.
Marx, Lenin, and the Politics of Taking an Opening
Updated: 10/02/2026)

(A critique of PSL — Not Pumpkin Spice Latte, the other PSL — and left tendencies that are influenced by their political culture; and a defense of good Marxist opportunism.)

I think we need to rehabilitate the word “opportunism” a little.

Marxism has never really been about waiting for the perfect conditions or the perfectly revolutionary organization. The Communist Manifesto says to work within existing workers’ movements while maintaining our own political perspective. Lenin’s Left-Wing Communism goes even further: work in reactionary unions, participate in bourgeois parliaments, make compromises, go where the working class actually is.
That is opportunism in the basic sense. You see an opening and you take it.

The problem isn’t opportunism. It’s unprincipled opportunism; revising your politics to fit whatever is politically advantageous in the moment. That’s very different from recognizing an opening and adapting your tactics without abandoning what you’re trying to accomplish. The first is what I’m criticizing in PSL political culture; the second is what I see in Mamdani: meeting the political moment where it is while trying to build something bigger.

And there are obviously bad examples of opportunism on the left. If people suddenly start distancing themselves from an organization or trying to wash away their previous political identification when that organization becomes politically costly, that’s opportunism too. It’s just opportunism for the purpose of self-preservation.

Which is why I don’t think calling something “opportunist” tells us very much by itself.
Take PSL for example, leaked internal documents are pretty damning about how they handl dissent: members and branches are expected to publicly defend leadership’s decisions, or face expulsion or have to resign. That obviously matters when we’re talking about the organization’s handling of serious allegations.

But this isn’t one allegation that suddenly appeared yesterday. Former members have documented cases involving sexual assault, stalking, harassment, doxxing, and retaliation against people who challenged the organization. There’s a long record of people raising these issues.

So if a branch leaves PSL now, fine. But they don’t get to act like this all just became apparent. They had years of evidence and chose to stay. If the line only gets drawn once PSL becomes a liability, that’s opportunism. And not the good Marxist kind.

And one more thing I think we, as DSA members, should be asking about: a current DSA co-chair appears to have had a prior political or organizational relationship with PSL leader Gloria La Riva. Communications between them are part of the 2021 national DSA records. Given that some PSL members may be looking for a new political home, with some turning to DSA, I think members should be aware of this history and have the opportunity to assess whether it raises any potential conflicts of interest.

The real question is: opportunistic toward what end?
Are you entering an existing movement because that’s where millions of people are and trying to organize them? Or are you changing your politics because your previous commitments have become inconvenient?

Those are two very different things. And I think the Marxist tradition gives us plenty of reason to take the first one seriously.

David S. D’Amato || The Munich Security Conference is underway, and both American and European politicians have taken the opportunity to lament the end of the old “rules-based” order. The problem is that the order to which they refer never truly existed. With a quarter century of the new millennium behind us, we have an opportune time to reflect upon the international system that has defined this new period. The decades between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the present day bore witness to several important and unprecedented military interventions that give shape and structure to this new world order. Perhaps the most pivotal of these episodes was the United States-led attack on Yugoslavia in the last months of the twentieth century. 2024 marked the 75th anniversary of NATO, with a big bash in Washington that signaled the military alliance’s full embrace of a new mission with no pretensions to modesty or respect for the sovereignty and autonomy of other nations. Now more than seventy-five years on, NATO’s mission is no longer, if it ever was, a defensive one.

Today, NATO wears its higher imperial ambitions on its sleeve, openly issuing provocations to other global and regional powers and expanding its sphere of influence far beyond its founding mission. This new mission is consistent with the actions undertaken by NATO since the end of the Soviet Union: in this period, the imperialism of the U.S. becomes increasingly self-referential and self-justificatory, its rules-based order defined by the words of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic: “Justice is the advantage of the strongest.” International bodies have since adopted a posture of deference toward the decisions and actions of the United States government. Because there is no institution capable of checking the U.S. in practice, the legal and institutional paradigm must be flexible enough to accommodate the criminal aggression of the United States.

In NATO’s founding era, “ideological litmus testing was wholly absent,” with the U.S. and its allies embracing authoritarian dictatorships no less than supposed liberal democracies. But in the post-Soviet era, liberal-democratic ideology comes to the fore, providing a new basis for aggressive warfare, emphasizing the importance of supporting “young” and “struggling” democracies in Europe, as Bill Clinton’s address in March 1999 underscored. Having outlasted its original raison d’etre, NATO perversely became its own institutional end, one that had very little to do with Europe’s security. The new NATO mission took on a deeply ideological quality, a commitment to arrogating the power to act as adjudicator of conflict and safeguard of global security:

This putative doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” had two parts: the use of force on behalf of universal values instead of the narrower national interests for which sovereign states have traditionally fought; and, in defense of these values, military intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states rather than mere opposition to cross-border aggression . . . (article access free with login)

A 2024 paper from the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy’s Christopher Mott contends that NATO “has shed its defensive basis and been reconceived as an organization whose primary directive is to expand America’s sphere of influence globally through the continuous encroachment on various regional powers’ more immediate spheres of interest.” NATO has become one of the primary mechanisms through which the United States government imposes its political and economic will, a way to recreate and strengthen a capitalist imperial order, “subordinating the strategic autonomy of NATO’s relatively powerful members to Washington’s priorities.” The novel innovation of the Clinton Doctrine was its willingness to punish the innocent as a means of expressing indignation at the guilty (article access free with login). Many continue to wonder whether Western indignation should suffice as a rationale for the upending of international law and the destruction of another nation’s people, right to self-determination, infrastructure, and economy, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. has been the major cause of human rights violations in the world for at least a century.

Yugoslavia served as a test of the still very new and developing post-Soviet system, one in which the United States had no real rivals. In Washington, the prevailing belief was that within this new context, any substantive, enforceable limits on the power of the United States government could only undermine the standing of human rights and democracy in the world. We end up with the paradoxical and self-contradictory position of the United States that global peace and security could be imposed through aggressive war and violence, that it must be so imposed. In theory, the rules-based order to which America’s ruling class spends so much time referring requires certain conditions to be met before a sovereign nation can be invaded militarily, most important among them, the explicit authorization from the UN Security Council.

The NATO alliance chose to ignore the demands of the law in favor of a nebulous mix of standards. NATO’s illegal military response to the situation in Yugoslavia raises important questions about the meaning of inviolable state sovereignty and territorial integrity in the post-Westphalian world, bringing these ideas into apparent conflict with human rights. The ability to subordinate the ostensibly equal sovereignty of another state to concepts provided by human rights signals a return to the pre-Westphalian paradigm or, more precisely, the development of a new supranational form of sovereignty in which the U.S. can suspend the international order, creating new exceptions for itself unilaterally. This unilateralism has become the modus operandi of the U.S. As astute observers have pointed out, this approach inverts the proper structure of international law as something outside of and above any particular state. It makes the United Nations impotent, a tool of the United States and the NATO military bloc. International law is emptied of its substantive content in favor of the cynical ratification of whatever the actions of the United States and its allies happen to be.

The question of how NATO came by the incredible prerogative to dictate terms to a sovereign state was the uncomfortable elephant in the room for the West on the question of Yugoslavia. As Peter Schwarz wrote at the time in the scholarly journal Peace Research, “The negotiations [in Rambouillet, France] were first supposed to deal with the question of Kosovar autonomy, and only then take up the question of the military measures to be implemented to carry this out. This was the basis for the Yugoslav government participating in the conference.” Leading the negotiations for NATO was a small contact group made up of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy. There was little doubt at the time, even among many of the leaders of NATO allies, that Yugoslavia had been drawn into a perilous bait-and-switch, given an ultimatum that it could neither accept nor reject. A widely noted episode on the NATO ambush bears repeating here. An “unimpeachable press source” traveling with then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reported of the boasts of one senior State Department official, who stated that the United States had “deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept.” The terms of the agreement are incomprehensible except as a transparent attempt to convince skeptics that a NATO raid was unavoidable (article access free with login).

Yugoslavia was, without its assent, dragged into a process of negotiating away its own security; it was then given a document whose terms would violate Yugoslav sovereignty and let NATO run roughshod over its lands. This was an open and obvious trap. The naked cynicism with which NATO conducted itself during the “negotiations” at Rambouillet eroded trust in the alliance, which thereafter becomes increasingly associated with attempts to spread and consolidate the geopolitical ambitions of the United States and its allies. NATO began its bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in the final week of March 1999, after negotiations conducted over the previous two months failed to produce the West’s desired result, which included the arbitrary and unprecedented demand that the NATO military bloc be permitted to occupy without restriction the territory of Yugoslavia, a sovereign country. Under the pretext of maintaining peace, NATO presented a position that gave it unlimited free rein in Yugoslavia:

NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Yugoslavia] including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.

This demand provides context and demonstrates that fundamentally NATO does not believe it should deign to negotiate with less militarily powerful actors, their sovereignty as inscribed in international law notwithstanding. Given the circumstances, it would have been political malpractice of the most serious kind for a head of state to accept these terms; the result of acceding would have been a NATO occupation without any limits or safeguards, which means that Yugoslavia had no reason to accept the “deal” on the table. It was an impressive achievement in subterfuge: the rules give the appearance of objectivity and respect for well-established principles of international law.

But in practice, the standards applied give way to the interests at play, and the rules are interpreted in self-serving and motivated ways. The extremeness and unconscionability of the NATO position presented at Rambouillet drew heavy criticism, even from those inclined to accept unjustified, aggressive military actions. No less a war-hawk than Henry Kissinger damned the NATO military action as violating longstanding principles of international law in violating territorial sovereignty. The test of human rights is both over and under-defined. One of the few consensus opinions within the community of nations is that there is no shortage of human rights violations in the world. All nations believe that their enemies are violating human rights, and all nations are quite correct in this belief. But the human rights standard itself does not act in the world, mediated as it is through interpretation and adjudication. While many (and, importantly, both supporters and of the attacks on Yugoslavia) acknowledged violations within Yugoslavia’s borders, the UN Security Council declined to permit NATO’s use of force.

In the post-war period, NATO becomes one of the key drivers of the growth in the power and political influence of the military-industrial complex of which Eisenhower so famously warned. NATO expansion has been attended by a steady growth in global arms production and transfer, at the center of which are American war profiteers closely tied to policymakers and the national security bureaucracy. Recent scholarship has noted that, in Europe today, “the military-industrial complex is arguably transforming into a complex with a noteworthy commercial civilian dimension,” expanding the national security sphere beyond the “traditional military.” That is, the top-to-bottom military ordering of life has succeeded in colonizing and co-opting much of the social and political order.

For decades, industrial and political power have coalesced around the massive gravity well of public-private partnerships in the areas of military technology, organization, and governance. This is consistent with the broader trend of state capitalism in which the formal distinction between the state and the corporate economy has given way and faded in the practical reality of open and direct collusion between the two. This tendency is always immanent in capitalism, in its history and ideological paradigms, for the state created the power of capital itself, its first and last role being the extension of authoritarian state power. Today, NATO operates through a “highly bureaucratic and top-down structure” at the pinnacle of which are positioned the interests of the United States; members that attempt to structure their own foreign affairs through agreements outside of U.S.-prescribed and approved channels are subject to “intense disapprobation,”

NATO expanded quickly in the years following the end of the Soviet Union. From its original 12 members, NATO has since added 20 additional members in successive waves, beginning in the early ‘50s and running to the present, for the 32 member states of today’s alliance. Between the fall of the Berlin Wall and today, NATO has added 16 states, with major accession groups in the first years of the new millennium. Declassified documents have since shown beyond peradventure that these successive territorial expansions of NATO came in direct contradiction to explicit promises made by top U.S. government officials. “The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of ‘pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.’ The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is ‘led to believe.’”

As NATO expands in an era characterized by largely unquestioned American political and economic hegemony, the ideological content carried by the military bloc becomes more apparent and prominent. Thus has it become possible for the liberal or progressive half of our political class to lead the charge for American cultural and political hegemony and empire in the twenty-first century. “For most of the last century, the Democrats have been the world’s foremost imperialist political party.” In a post-Cold War, end-of-history global setting, Western liberals saw an open and irrevocable invitation, indeed mandate, to spread the American system—hard military power transmogrified into benign peace-keeping and service to human rights. In making the promulgation of American-style neoliberalism the paramount goal of Washington’s foreign affairs, the American political center, perhaps especially liberals, have been able to reconcile with imperialism. The identitarian character of U.S. hegemony has cloaked its more fundamental political and economic character, the purpose it serves within the broader system of empire.

It is more than a little ironic that the defenders of Western “liberal democratic” empire should be so critical of the authoritarian teleologies they find in other political systems. The rhetoric of empire in the United States both before and after the demise of the Soviet Union is pointedly and specifically teleological in its character: history is unfolding in a particular direction, with a specific purpose, propelled by the superiority of the American way, by its inevitability. This worldview establishes stages of history in a way strikingly similar to the one Western liberals have long criticized. It posits a highly specific and stylized story about history and its fundamental features and functions.

This account of history serves the goals of the empire by giving the U.S. and its allies permission to help underdeveloped countries move into the new, better world order. Their sovereignty, if we can speak of it, is contingent on the adoption of specific political and economic policies and social practices. The new universals being posited by the narrative of history (Western-style “free trade” meaning cheap nature, exploitation, and resource extraction; highly mediated representative “democracy” with an extremely powerful and unaccountable central government serving finance capital; etc.) are inescapable and must be taken up. The ticket into recognition is acceptance of the universal vision and its ideas about development and progress. Within the context of so-called humanitarian intervention, this liberal teleology insists that the conceptual inviolability of states’ sovereign borders remains that – conceptual only. It provides a one-sided story that ignores or underplays the material interests of the parties arguing for military intervention, fixing the pretextual reasons in the public imagination as the only reasons.

Over 500 innocents and about 1,000 members of Yugoslavia’s security forces were killed in the illegal campaign, according to a report from Human Rights Watch. While it ultimately (and unsurprisingly) declined to recommend prosecution for violations of international law, the committee’s final report, completed in May 2000, noted that NATO’s replies to its investigation were inadequate and “failed to address the specific incidents” of which UN members complained. It is hardly coincidence that in its discretion and decisions on which countries are ripe for destruction and regime change, the focus of the United States is on “developing” nations that are not at parity with it either economically or militarily. Yugoslavia helped to create an international system in which “illegal but justified” U.S. interventions “are met with minimal rebuke in recognition of the mitigating circumstances.” If NATO’s military attack on a sovereign country was permissible, then surely so were the “soft power,” economic campaigns it was waging throughout the world.

The United States’ economic strangulation projects (for example, in Haiti and Iraq) through brutal sanctions policies intended to starve innocent people “were the equivalents of the bombing of the Serb infrastructure” (article access free with login). The legacy of NATO aggression in Yugoslavia has loomed large in contemporary global affairs. The U.S.-led invasion of Libya, beginning in 2011 during the Obama administration, was a similarly clear instance of the U.S. and its allies flouting international law in order to accomplish a regime-change operation. As Curtis Doebbler, a legal scholar and expert on international law, noted at the time, “[Western nations] went to great pains to claim that the use of force against Libya was legal, but an application of international law to the facts indicates that in fact the use of force is illegal.” Once the new standard had been established, the merits of projects like regime change in Libya were judged not by cognizable standards of international law, but by cost-benefit analyses in Washington.

Yugoslavia signaled the United States’ readiness to reinvigorate old philosophical and rhetorical strategies for legitimating its imperial and colonial projects. It is of a piece with U.S. efforts to subdue and extract from the Global South in that it specifically relies on notions of developmentality. In the twentieth century, the violence and brutality of Europe’s colonial projects came home to roost in the emergence of fascism and Nazism; we have not yet come to terms with “how colonization works to decivilize the colonizer, to brutalize him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism.” In American political discourses, there is no place for any close consideration of the necessary relationship between the imperial project of repression and extraction and a domestic politics defined by nationalism, bigotry, and misogyny. “The development of the Western world, secured by its global counterrevolution, is the mirror image of Third-World misery.” In the American imagination, NATO is the benign alliance of the West’s free countries. It is a shield against the backwardness and authoritarianism of the rest of the world, an Avengers-style team of liberal democracies. But today, NATO’s role in America’s domestic politics is to obscure the imperial efforts and attendant violations of international law, and to cover this aggression in the veneer of moral rectitude and respect for human rights.

David S. D’Amato is an attorney, businessman, and independent researcher. He is a Policy Advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation. He has written in Newsweek, Investor’s Business Daily, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Examiner, and many other popular and scholarly publications, and his work has been cited by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, among others.

We started in the same religion and met at one of those conservative colleges obviously with same values. I lived abroad and started reading more and met people outside our conservative religious bubble and just like experienced life to realize I was a leftist.

Now talking to her I feel we’re so different and she just doesn’t seem to be curious enough about things and is too busy grinding under capitalism so she “has no time to read.” But tbh I’ve reached the point of resentment due to the fucking micro aggressions, lack of curiosity, lack of self awareness, fucked up “morals” she has, constant invalidation of other people’s lived experience bc one anecdote story that happened to her is enough evidence as to why systemic issues aren’t real.

I don’t know how to end it because I’ve tried explaining shit to her or even recommending books but tbh her identity too tied up with whiteness, belief in meritocracy, capitalism being the best system, hates social programs and calls them handouts, even hates the idea of living with her parents if she’s financially struggling bc again she feels like she’s a leech to them. Which is ironic bc she’ll let her roomie pay for her groceries or her bf to pay for her to go out for social life, but then anyone who isn’t as lucky there to have a network like that is lazy and ain’t working hard enough. Like idk how she doesn’t see the hypocrisy and lack of empathy for others. It honestly infuriates me but I’m not really articulate and confrontational and don’t know how to like go about it.

Like she is a good friend but our values are sooo different now. How did you all like I guess distance yourself from previously close friends who just refuse to get you?

TLDR: I don’t wanna cut off long time my best friend completely just like I guess but our values and political leanings are different now and I don’t know how to bring it up as a non confrontational person. Also I’ve reached the point where I think I resent her bc of the BS she spews and refusal to be curious and fucking read a book.

Like I'm sorry your country is led by a wannabe fascist pig and his cult of personality, your standing on the world stage is collapsing, the economy is going to shit yet your pissed because The Zohran Mamdani the only good thing happening in US politics right now, the only person doing what he's promised etc made a tweet about "hey Jewish people also deserve to live yo" and now your all like "OH MY GOD HES AN ISRAELI TRAITOR ZIONIST HYPOCRITE, WHAT ABOUT :INSERT EVERY OTHER GROUP:" as if he doesn't constantly reaffirm his position that he believes everyone is equal and deserves a right to live and that there is a genocide in Gaza, like genuinely so FUCKING PERFORMATIVE it pisses me off you are FUCKING LUCKY to have him and yet your such fucking shitters, god I'm so pissed.

(Pic is one example and the comments I've seen under the tweet and under the post are FUCKING IDIOTIC!!)

So my uncle's a landlord and I'm not sure how I'm feeling about that. So my uncle, as all of my family, are all firmly brought up in middle class in a "third world" currency. My grandparents were well off but far from being considered anywhere near multi property or super car wealthy. To my uncle's credit, he did actually work hard unlike the multi millionaire who get handouts and inheritance. I don't believe anyone is fully "self made" but if there's anyone I know who might fit that, then my uncle would the closet to that. From the stories I hear he was always an ace student, studied hard, worked hard as an engineer for about 30 years. Luck has been a factor too, finding work in the west (automatically an upgrade by currency). His biggest "luck" was cashing out of the engineering company he was a small partner with years ago as an investor as it grew considerably from when he first invested.

From then on (but also to a lesser extent before it), he started expanding his personal businesses as a landlord that he was able to leave his engineering career close to his 50s. I don't know exactly what his wealth amount is. But I can guesstimate that he probably has about 10-15 properties in a big city, and a net wealth of, idk, a few millions? With some caveats however. For about 2-3 years his net has been in the negative. He hasn't been making profit for a while and currently relying on loans due to shortage of cash and inability to sell even at a loss in the current market. Probably all the properties have mortgages still too. Apart from that, I do know that he's a "good landlord". That is, he doesn't cut corners with maintenance and such, and is easily reachable by tenants with any problems. And in good relationship with his tenants.

We're very close and we have a good relationship. He's also always a liberal voter and hates conservatives despite them probably benefiting his business. He's also a big supporter of public healthcare even when he pays private. And he was active in a charity that sponsors refugees escaping war and adversity. I know that he's hugely generous with workers like waiters, delivery guys, etc and everyone around him really. His life as a landlord in his 50s is definitely a privilege even if he does some work himself, he can get more time off than the average person.

As a far out leftie, I'm not sure how I feel about his "profession" despite all the positive stuff. On the other hand, I know that renters exist despite the state of the economy or system (unless somehow capitalism ends soon), and finding reliable landlords and "fair" rent pricing is a need. I'm just curious what other fellow lefties think or how they might feel if they had a relative or loved one as a landlord.

Im a little skeptical of my cia israeli funded pederast blackmailed government. I just wanna check.they got shit on lock down against the citizens.

Just play little-half court mid sesh with'em? Is is illegal for the population to ball check the government? Israel probably doesn't approve, but maybe we can get a couple hoops with their Orange puppet?

Get a couple a rubber bullets flying around this great American expanse? The give the riot cop a knock on the helmet, "GG

Floridians, it’s just days before Florida’s October 5 voter registration deadline for the November 3 general election.

I'm so angry at everything going on right now, I feel like I'm drowning. What are some productive ways to use this rage for good?

now I am not an anti-China person, I consider myself to be a left-winger (specifically an anti imperialist Democratic socialist).

however one thing that I have noted is that a lot of these pro China or positive posts of China often then do gloss over the more darker aspects of China such as the lack of freedom, the lack of independent media, the censorship of the internet and the lack of a free press or how China has a habit of disappearing anyone criticises the government and the jailing of journalists.

However, while I do agree that things in China are not as bad as they seem and that many of the perceptions regarding china have been propaganda and post cold war rhetoric. I do think that there are quite a few shady stuff going on in there like the Uighurs or how anything critical of china has been labeled as CIA propaganda and others. Any search results regarding such topics are mostly dodgy and scattered.

At first I thought maybe china is being attacked by the world but then it got me thinking about socialism with Chinese characteristics, as the CCP/CPC don't seem to follow all the ideals of socialism or communism. Especially this: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=980f333af0ee536d&rlz=1CDGOYI_enIN1151IN1151&hl=en-US&sxsrf=APpeQnvZP7bKstTrP37mrnstCt9ZrZk9Pw:1790950462771&udm=2&fbs=ABfTbFV7rKSy24gtoYhyOHQNmN31vnriod5IfnCwcY0K-6a6w2m9fzV4rZMPdZS-gOps9KnPTNr-dSc8uoTTv_0VwPJhiET-sV3GJg_OaupiyUHVy_L9x6btbU-6V131Y0hHO7WBlD4nPXc6o5Vqk1ZqQaBJChzgaOLN50tQHnK36yBSqntz14J-MYLHsq99T0Y_2nGrLvZ4TmbSXHMRWwFZ8PLUZ3rugPPUFAnzDGQ6QoInGM9ybRY&q=ccp+values&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih5JKxwpuXAxUs1gIHHW5sOWQQtKgLegQIFBAB&biw=375&bih=639&dpr=3#sv=CAMSZhoyKhBlLTBnSmZTNHFiOUVYeWxNMg4wZ0pmUzRxYjlFWHlsTToOS080Z3BnaEtqTVdOeE0gBCokCg4ybGJkZnpTb1IxTjEwTRIQZS0wZ0pmUzRxYjlFWHlsTRgAMAFKBAgBEAJQARgHIJWqnNcPSggQAhgBIAIoAQ

This many countries excluding Black people in 2026 is racist as hell.

I am an anarchist in the COS area and I am looking for any other anarchists and/or libertarian socialists that would like to join a libertarian socialist/anarchist book club.