#Ask EvilElitest
Text
Was Sander's Robbed in 2020?
Ok so lets walk to the past for a bit. Its 2020, the Democratic primary is getting heated. Biden keeps leading in all the polls, but after three primary elections, he has been coming off short. Moderates are panicking and it looks like Bernie Sanders might be able to get the nomination after all. He was counted out after the heart attack, and yet he kept on going.
So Sanders going in 2020 had two options for how to run his campaign. About 30% of the party loved him, about 20% of the party absolutely hated him, and 55% were mixed more ambivalent about him. He could either
Try to win over the parts of the party that aren't already supporting him, in particular the black community (Sanders does this a bit with the Latino democrats, his latino outreach very impressive and very underreported in the Democratic party
Try to hold unto your 25-30% of the party and hope rest of the vote is split between all the different moderates, so he can win with a plurality of the vote. due to the weirdness of the Democratic primary rules he can still win the nomination even without the majority, the winner only needs a plurality. if the moderate votes are split between Biden, Mayor Pete, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar, then Sanders could squeak in a victory with less than a third of the party.
Biden is the frontrunner, is polling ahead of everybody else, particular among the all important African-American segment of the democratic electorate. However he isn't beloved and there are a ton of Moderates running against him, and all of them are focused on attacking Biden in the hopes that they could take his place.
Sanders too option 2, which was risky. Winning with a plurality rather than a majority always leaves a lot of sore feelings, and had Sanders won the 2020 primary he would have to have dealt with the 70% of the electorate who didn't vote for him feeling sore, but maybe he could have handled it, we will never know. The advantage of his plan is that he just needed to hold unto his base, who already loved him. The danger is that if the moderates ever managed to rally around a single candidate, suddenly he is very outnumbered. Risky play but he did it. This is the same plan that trump use to win the Republican primary in 2016 (to be clear, that isn't a moral judgement on sanders, Trump isn't bad because he won with a plurality, he is bad because he is a fascist). There is one key difference though the Republican primary uses a winner takes all approach, so who ever wins the state gets all of the points, which allowed Trump to expand his lead. This is because Republicans don't believe in democracy.
Those are some great mittens
So far this plan has been working well for Sanders. The moderates have split the vote, Sanders won Nevada, New Hampshire and either won Iowa or it was so close that he basically won Iowa. Biden has yet to do well in any of the first three states.
But Then, South Carolina, the first state with a large black electorate. Biden secures a key endorsement from US Representative and Civil Rights activist Jim Clyburn. The results were a pretty stunning turnaround for Biden, who won 49% of the votes and got 39 of the delegates. Sanders came in second, with 20% of the vote and 15 of the delegates. Buttigieg, Warren, Steyer, and Klobuchar didn't get a high enough percentage of the vote to get any delegates.
Biden almost won more than the rest combined.
So lets take a moment to talk about the US primary system, because it is both illogical and needlessly complicated. Rather than have all the states vote at once like a normal fucking country, each individual state plus the territories plus DC hold there own primary, most of which are not in order. So for example, the great state of NY, fourth largest state in the country and the center of the global economy, has its primary at the literal end of the process. So yeah, I've never in my lifetime gotten to have any effect on a presidential primary, because the race is already over by the time it gets to NY. So who wins a primary is not necessarily the most popular person with the party, its who ever can stay in the race longest, its a marathon. A super popular candidate could still drop out if they aren't popular in the first few state. Maybe Elizabeth warren was super popular in New York and if she had been able to hold unto those state she would have won, but we will never know. this system sucks, and I hate it.
So the way the primary goes down is that you have 4 elections from individual states. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina. Then you have something called Super Tuesday, where Virginia, North Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama, Arkansas, and Utah all go at once. So basically you go from 4 individual states to a fuck tone of state (including the two largest) all at once).
So another critical thing about the democratic party is demographics. While the republican party is a white Christianity identity party, the democratic party is a diverse coalition. The most important part of that is the African American vote, who have steadily become the deciding vote in the Democratic party since the 60s. About 90% of African American voters are democratic, and African Americans make up just over a quarter of the Democratic party. They are also by far the most organized and proactive voters, due to years of having to fight against voter suppression (especially in the South). The black electorate in the democratic party is one of the parties greatest advantages, and it also why the party has become steadily less racist every year (Obama really accelerated this process). To be clear this is a good thing, the Democratic party is better for it.
For a series of very complicated reasons I could get into another time, Sanders had never done particularly well with African American voters and Biden has. This isn't universal, the African American community is not a monolith and has a diversity of views but that is how the demographics played out generally in the primary. Most importantly, apart from Biden was the only candidate, moderate or progressive, who seemed to excite the African American voting bloc.
The reason why this matters is that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada don't have very large black populations, Iowa and new Hampshire are lily white, and Nevada is less than 10% African American. Despite being more than a fourth of the party, the first three states are not representative of the African American vote (maybe we should have one nation wide election eh?)
So once biden won South Carolina, it became obvious that A) Biden's defeats in the first three states were not affecting his popularity in the larger states B) none of the other moderates had any real African American support. This is what leads to the supposed "betrayal"
The Day before Super Tuesday, Obama called up the remaining moderates, and convinced most of them to drop out and endorse Biden. They did so, and it basically shattered Sander's chance of winning. With most of the moderates unified, Biden won 10 states to Sander's 4, wracking up 726 delegates to sanders 505. Biden got 286065 votes to sanders 74,755. Not only was this a great victory for Biden, after super Tuesday all of the other moderates withdrew, allowing him to crush Sanders going forward. Biden had 2709 Delegates to Sanders 1,113, but more importantly Biden won 51% of the votes, with sanders getting 26%. Some Sanders fans have blamed Elizabeth Warren for not dropping out, but even if Warren had and every one of her votes had gone to standers (and there is a lot of evidence to suggest a third of her votes would have gone to Biden), that would only make Sanders at 33% to 51%.
To put this in raw numbers, Biden won 19 million votes. Sanders had just under 9.7 million. Biden won 10 million more votes than Sanders (Elizabeth warren got 2.8 million)
So I see a lot of leftist types claim that this was an example of democratic treachery, that the DNC party robbed sanders of his chance of winning, this was Nixon style Ratfuckery that destroyed Sander's populist campaign to put Biden, who nobody likes anyway, in charge. And as a progressive who didn't want Biden to win, I have to say it sucked...but that wasn't a cheat.
Biden won the popular vote, love him or hate him, he did win more than half of the democratic votes, that makes him the candidate, that is how democracy works, sometimes you lose. Some have claimed that Obama calling up the other moderates and getting them to drop out was a cheat but....how? The moderates knew they couldn't win after South Carolina, and they were ideologically closer to Biden, so they dropped out and endorsed the person they agreed with more. Most Sanders fans wanted Warren to drop out, so I knew you guys understand that importance of consolidating behind a winning candidate. Thats just good politics, the fact that Sanders didn't bother to try to court other candidates to drop out is actually a major weakness of him as a candidate. If the situation had been reversed, and the moderates were trying to win with only 30%, wouldn't you guys want the other progressives to drop out behind sanders
Because Sanders is a populist, and his rhetoric is so tied to the idea of "The people rising up against the elites" that idea that he lost demographically is sort of a trauma his more radical followers can't really deal with, so they retreat to conspiracy theories. Remember, a conspiracy theory is something people turn to to avoid facing a difficult truth. If you identify yourself as populist, and you lose demographically, you have to face some difficult questions. Maybe sanders was the wrong candidate? Maybe he made mistakes? Maybe his fanbase sabotaged his chance of winning, maybe his hardcore fans make a mistake in there understanding of the political situation. Maybe he didn't do anything wrong, it just wasn't the year for a progressive? Or maybe Sleepy Joe Biden actually was a more cunning political operator than they gave him credit for and they were duped.
Or most difficult of them all. Maybe most Americans just don't agree with Sander's position?
Those are hard questions, but you kinda of have to answer them if you want to be a progressive who accomplishes things. I might do later posts that address them if people are interested.
There is a segment of the left who are moving into purple
However, for those who can't face difficult choices, they retreat to conspiracy, and they claim that Sanders was robbed
Hey you know who hasn't been saying that Sanders was robbed by the DNC? Bernie Sanders, because he is an adult who understands how democracy works. He lost, he took it gracefully and then he endorsed and campaigned for the winner, cause sanders actually cares about the cause and not faux revolutionary nonsense.
(Fun fact, Biden and Sanders are friends Irl. Like no joke, those two get along personally)
I didn't vote for Biden in the primary and I was not happy when he won the Primary. However I never thought Biden was senile, or a fool, or a hack, I think that he is a very cunning politician who has a public persona that encourages people to underestimate him And become people can't stand the idea that they could lose to Biden, they retreat into fantasy. This is why MAGA denies the election, they can't face the reality that most of the country doesn't like them, and they can't admit that they lost to a man who doesn't fit there mental image of an impression leader
Yeah...that ends well.
#neglected historical fact#historical fact#ask evilelitest#bernie sanders#Elizabeth Warren#Joe Biden#jim clyburn#2020 primary#Democratic party#Conspiracy theories#Democracy#Donald Trump
24 notes
·
View notes
Note
Okay, serious question professional critics have been and will be debating for decades to come, but I'm sure you know better than them: Are games art? This is not question of quality-most art in all forms sucks-the argument how we define art and its purpose, function. Some argue games themselves aren't, but may contain art within them. That in a narrative driven game, the story may be art, but that's seperate from the game itself. Would a puzzle count as art? Would Solitaire? A slot machine?
I keep trying to answer this question and then I keep putting it off cause I want to get it perfect and then it inevitably gets lost and I never respond so lets just go for it. Yes, Videos games are art, if we can identify any medium as art. The only arguments I can see that would deny video games as an art form would also dismiss Film as an art form. Now there are many differnet ways that a Video Game can be art, its a very multi facaded medium, but a few include
Story, the obvious one. Disco Elysium, Planescape Torment, the Baldur's Gate Series, Fallout New Vegas, the Witcher Series, Dragon Age, I have no Mouth and I must Scream, Legacy of Kaine, Undertale, God of War, are all good examples of this. (I like RPGS)
Mixing Mechanics and Story- Portal, Silent Hill 2, Bioshock, Deux Ex, Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2, Walking Dead, all of these are examples of narrative and story being mered on a fundemental level. The Soulsbourn Games by fromsoft do a really good job of illustrating some very buddhist themes in there mechanics.
Pushing the medium forward. Resident Evil 4 is a fucking stupid game but its incredible genre invovations and the fact its fun as fuck pushed the entire medium forward. Same with Dead Space, Half Life (which is also you now..good), Monkey Island,
Mechanics as a way of viewing systems, or to have a vibe. Mechanics can be used to make you understand the world different from a system level, Paper's Please is a great example of this, a lot of Civlization Games or TTRPGS do this, Far Cry tries to do this. Resident Evil 2 Remake really does capture a sort of panic which is very impressive, Princeo of Persia, the original Thief Games, Sympathy of the Night
Video games as expression. This Dragon Cancer, No More Heroes, Braid, Even Postal, an uttelry vile game does express a certain Alt Right attitude (fuck garbage)
Video games as system design, just the brilliance of seeing a bunch of systems override together.
Mood Pieces. The Zelda games are masters of this, but also Shadow of the Collosius,
Purely mechanical Design. Doom is a great example of this, but Missile Command, even tetris has a lot of soviet aethetics in there
I think a puzzle counts as art, or has the potential to count as art, if it can change the way your mind thinks. A good puzzle doesn't just have you solve it, your brain twists around in order to change the way you view things. Like Braid requires you to like...unstuck your brain to understand the puzzles, its incredible
SO yes, games are art....but not all games are good art
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
Ask Me About Russian/Ukrainian history
Since I am back at last (hopefully for good) lets get this going with a classic history review, ask me any history questions you have about the events that led to the current conflict in Ukraine. Ask me about why "leftists" are inexplicably supporting Putin, what people mean by calling Ukrainian Nazis, what is the OAN, how the hell did Zelensky get elected anyway, what does Russia wants with Ukraine, and what exactly is NATo
#Ask EvilElitest#Russia#Ukraine#Ukraine War#Nationalism#NATO#Putin#Zelensky#Euromaiden#Warsaw pact#USSR
5 notes
·
View notes
Note
So, where do you fall on Leftism spectrum? I sure hope not believing in left armament or successful uprising disqualifies me from being futher left than a liberal.
oh this is a complicated question, but in short not wanting a violent revolution doesn't make you not a leftist, it just makes you not an idiot. My view of leftism is that it is about protecting human rights, which is my first priority. I think my leftism boils down to the following points
Liberalism: Negative Freedoms, aka Civil Liberties, protections against government tyranny
Examples: Right to free speech, Freedom of religion, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, habitus Corpus, innocence until proven guilty, warrant any sort of limit on state power
Socialism: Positive freedoms, aka things the government needs to provide to all citizens
Examples: Free education, Free housing, Free Healthcare, free food, land redistribution, free clothing, free lawyers, free support ect
Progressivism, aka Civil Rights, things to protect citizens from other Citizens, mostly in terms of opposing bigotry. So policies that fight back against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, nativism, religious intolerance, anti Semitism and antiquated cultural norms.
Democratic Republican (not the political party like pro Democracy) Pro Democracy: Democracy is the best government system that we have and the more proportional a democracy the better, we need to remove most authoritarian power structures. democracy should be designed to resist corruption and graft form the ground up
Examples: Ranked Choice voting, abolish the Senate, lower the voting age, popular election of Presidents, term limits, abolish gerrymandering, limit the Supreme Court
Green: Oh dear god, please make the environment less horrible we are going to die
Examples: AHHHHHHHHHHH
I generally think that leftists must balance all 5 of those, if not, its not leftism i want, intersectionality is the name of the game
now within Leftism I am a huge statist, I think the State is the most effective tool for implementing these policies, and the most powerful tool for the left (i also have a low opinion on human nature) I am anti utopian, I am pro intellectual and anti conspiracy theory
So I think that makes me a Progressive Social Democrat, since "humanist" isn't a political party (except in disco Elysium)
#Ask EvilElitest#Leftism#Liberalism#Socialism#Progressivism#Social Democrat#Republican#Democrat#progressivism#Moralist#Humanism#Positivism#Politics
4 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi, “tankie" here, and I’m going to be charitable and assume you are well-meaning but ill-informed on your posts. You seem to imply that since American Marxists are critical towards America, they must have neutral-to-positive views on Russia. Not only is this a false dilemma fallacy (acting as if being anti-American and being anti-Russian are the only two, diametrically opposed, options), but is also broadly incorrect. Aside from a few baby Marxists and LARPers, there is a general dislike of the Russian Federation among Marxists due to its leaders (Yeltsin, Putin) being responsible for the illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the USSR. However, you may be confusing something else. As Lenin said:
“For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.”
As an American Marxist, it really doesn’t matter if I’m the most pro-Russian person in the country or curse Putin’s name. At the end of the day, the effect I have on the political development of Russia is essentially zero. Rather, I have to trust Russian Marxists to be the ones to shepherd their country in the right direction. Conversely, as an American the effect I have on American political development, while still close to zero, is appreciably more than I have on any other country. Thus, it’s my duty to primarily focus my criticisms on the USA, as it is both the country where my words hold the most weight as well as a country I am intimately familiar with. People who don’t understand this reality may choose to take that as being nothing but an ideology of being anti-American, which is clearly incorrect.
Hello, I hope you are having a good day. The problem with your thinking Friend, is that the world has changed since Lenins time...and also Lenin himself was not the best adherent of that principle. We are in a massively interconnected global community now, and international powers are actively getting involved in other people's politics, you can't just separate one state from the rest. For example, the conflict in Syria directly led to the election of donald Trump, these things are connected.
"Aside from a few baby Marxists and LARPers, there is a general dislike of the Russian Federation among Marxists due to its leaders (Yeltsin, Putin) being responsible for the illegal and undemocratic dissolution of the USSR."
God I fucking wish this was true, but go through the various Marxists blogs i'm arguing with now, so many of them are echoing a pro Putin line, one created from the Russian Federation's propaganda in regards to Ukraine. And it leads to self described communist supporting a far right reactionary anti communist regime. When the default Marxists-Leninist position on Ukraine is inseparable from Tucker's Carlson's position then there is something rotten in your movement
"At the end of the day, the effect I have on the political development of Russia is essentially zero."
You need to pay more attention to Russian politics friend cause that is really not the case
"Thus, it’s my duty to primarily focus my criticisms on the USA, as it is both the country where my words hold the most weight as well as a country I am intimately familiar with."
Your duty as a Marxists is to fight against fascism don't get yourself limited by state borders because what happens with this attitude friend is that you take the typical American Centric attitude towards other nations of "America good, foreigners bad" and just flip it, you wind up with the same basic attitude though. "America bad, foreigners good" is still just as reductivism and America centric, and honestly as toxic. For example, take the 2014 euromaiden uprising, where millions of Ukrainians rose up against there far right authoritarian government and over threw him, something which Marxists should support (and indeed the communist parties in Ukraine did support). Almost any time I go unto Marxist-Leninist sites, they present this as a CIA backed coup which is just...massively insulting to the agency of Ukrainians, suggesting that they don't have any autonomy of there own but only act as extensions of the US. I see a lot of Tankies viewing the conflict in Ukraine with the same blinders that Americans used to view the Vietnam war, not seeing the conditions on the ground or the historical events that led to this, but only seeing it as a front in the global war between communism and capitalism, which is both reductive and self destructive.
Thanks for the polite response though
2 notes
·
View notes
Note
Man, an extremely few things named after Babylon are ever about the actual Babylon, huh.
No basically, Babylon was a powerful civilization who pissed of all of there neighbors so we don't have as much of there narrative, and since the Bible talks shit about Babylon a lot, for over 2,000 years people are reading these passages about a long dead empire and assuming it must be a metaphor for something contemporarily
2 notes
·
View notes
Note
If you had to pick one thig aotu mdoern poitical discourse that troubles you most of all, what would it be?
God, so many to pick from....I think Conspiracy theories on principle, because it makes every other form of discuss impossible. I basically reject any movement that relies on them, hence my issue with the so called "Alt Left"
1 note
·
View note
Note
YOur just a Russophobe
I"m gonna let you in on a little secret...I'm a massive Russophile. I love Russian literature, I love Russian film, I love Russian theater, I love Russian Architecture I love Russian History, I love Russian Music. Culturally speaking I am a sucker for all things Russian.
I have Russian family (through marriage not blood), I've been to Russia multiple times, I even have a weird relative who is a Russian Orthodox priest (in no way related to the Russian part of my family it is very bizzare) who thinks Putin is god's gift to Russia.
At the risk of alienating all my Ukrainian friends, I actually think Kiev sounds nicer than Kyiv and I think Russian is a prettier language (Yeah this is gonna get me cancelled)
I just...Know what Imperialism is. I know how Putin's regime functions, I know how the Russian empire was made, I know the history of the region, and I know how Right wing disinformation campaigns work. me liking a culture doesn't mean that I am like "oh well its ok for them to do war crimes". I'm a huge fan of Japanese cinema, I don't deny the Rape of Nanking. Conversely, me not liking actions taken by a goverment doesn't mean I hate its people. Russia has a 140 million people (well less now), its a hugely diverse nation, it also has (had) a very large and very strong anti war movement). The actions of the goverment doesn't entirely reflect upon the people, especially since Russia isn't a democracy. Its a stupid nationalist view to conflate opposition to the actions of the Russian goverment with hatred of the Russian people (and for the record, I think what Latvia is considering with its Russian minority is racist and wrong).
Now there are parts of Russian culture I'm very critical of, specifically the same things I don't like about Americans. Like the US, Russia as a state is founded upon a legacy of colonization, racism, slavery, religious fanaticism and authoritarianism, and like the US you have this fucked up Manifest Destiny attitude where a segment of the population feel entitled to have a superpower status, its fucked up. But that isn't a wide spread condemnation of Russian as an entity, I can talk shit about any country that I am knowledgeable about.
#ask evilelitest2#russia#historical fact#neglected historical fact#ask evilelitest#communism#marxism#politics#history
1 note
·
View note
Note
Isn't it odd JFK has become known as this big Libertarian movie cause it tells people to mistrust the government, when the reason it says you shouldn't is that it's made up of nazis, reactionaries and klansmen more ocncerned with mantaining profit than human lives?
the legacy of JFK has been seized by the Right ins some really weird ways, including RFK Jrs entire weird right wing campaign we have going on now. Its a bizarre form of boomer nostalgia I honestly don't get it, but i blame oliver stone
0 notes
Note
Does anyone actually believe Oswald killed JFK without the CIA’s influence?
I do, I think Oswald Killed JFK for the same reason people become mass shooters todays
1 note
·
View note
Note
Is it true works of Marx and Lenin are banned in DPRK?
Its really hard to know for sure what if anything is happening in the DPRK, information is so limited. Based on what i can tell (and bear in mind I don't read Korean), Marx isn't banned but the original works aren't available to citizens without being heavily censored.
1 note
·
View note
Note
Watching people defend capitalism by describing features endemic to all market economies…. Man capitalists are tiring.
Yeah, the fact that capitalism is such a vague term does not help its awful
0 notes
Note
Pretty random ask, but I find myself thinking a lot about anti-intellectualism in America, and wondering if we're unique compared to other countries. Would you say anti-intellectuals are actually more prevalent in the US than in most other developed countries, or is it more that they have disproportionate influence here?
As an aside, I think I need to reread Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". I assume you're familiar with it, and it's held up pretty well, despite being 50+ years old.
I kept putting off answering this question because it was so interesting to me and I kept kinda...changing my answer. So i'm going to finally suck it up and answer it now. I think that anti-intellectual can be found everywhere, in fact I would say its one of the default sins of the human condition is people's desire for simplicity.
however I think it goes from a sort of "incurious superstitious" anti intellectual to a sort of proud Defiant anti intellectual when you combine it with the type of arrogance that comes from being an Imperial power. I feel like Russia, the US, pre War Germany, France and Britain have in common is this notion cultural supremancy that makes you above mere facts. I was thinking about how Dan Olson in his video on Flat Earth talked about part of Qanon's underlying argument is that mere reality cannot hope to stand up to their sense of entitlement. When you get a certain sense of cultural supremacy built into you, then the universe seems like its designed to cater to you, so intellectualism is a threat to your core identity. IMperalism is a snake that eats its own tail
21 notes
·
View notes
Note
I find it interesting how many of the individual feminists that turned me off of feminism in my chud days are now terfs.
Like they took the feminist label for social credit, but their politics begin and end at their irrational hatred of ppl have or had dicks.
Yes TERFs are the Tankies of Feminism, they basically hurt the whole movement by existing and seem to focus on trying to mimic and reflect the people they hate rather than actually you know...challenge them. Really turns people away from the movement too and wind up working with rightists more than leftists honestly
17 notes
·
View notes
Note
Thinking about getting into Bioshock, already knowing the the basics of the story and I dunno, I've heard its critique of objectivism is flawed at best, but it seems especialy weird that the real villain a perfect "parasite" strawman objectivists despise. Yes, his support of downrotten was bullshit, but that's what objectivists think of everyone who believes in it.
Honestly I think the first game, for all its faults, does a better criticism of Objectivism than people give it credit for, but that might be because I had the misfortune to read Atlas Shrugged. The game does take Objectivists at their own logic though, so its pointing out the flaws of Ayn Rand's world view...within the confines of her own world view.
Within an Objectivists framework, human beings should be as selfish as possible and only take actions that promote their own self interest. They should also be no regulation of the economy or goverment control. If everybody is a selfish bastard, then something something...utopia. But within the framework of the game...what if it is within your best interest to be "selfless" in order to gain power? And if everybody is a selfish bastard, why would they create a Libertarian society?
That is the point of Fontaine (though he isn't a very good character nor a good final villain). He is an utterly selfish immoral bastard who destroys the Objectivist "utopia" by being the exact type of person it was supposedly designed for. Because it turns out, selfishness is not a good foundation for a society.
Like ok, Andrew Ryan creates a society with almost no goverment controls and a free market? This of course leads to massive wealth inequality and a society where many citizens lack basic necessities. Andrew Ryan is ok with this because he is an Objectivist. But Frank Fontaine is like "Wait a second, what if I can get more power by...rallying the people in opposition to this unequal society". Even if its only for personal power, Frank Fontaine is supporting social welfare because it helps his best interest, and the poor people of society are fighting against this system because its in their best interest. Even in a purely selfish society, wellfare can emerge out of people's self interest.
Then there is the fact that he is a smuggler. Andrew Ryan's society is based on the Free Market and the Free Market doesn't work if there is too much overt cheating involved, that is why most libertarians still want the goverment to exist to prevent fraud in the stock market for example. But of course, it is in Frank's rational self interest to support smuggling and undermining the trade of Rapture, because he benefits, which is in fitting with the selfish worldview of the society.
We also see this with Andrew Ryan. Objectivists are obsessed with free will, its the main foundation of their entire society. And yet both Frank and Ryan embrace mind control because its in their best self interest. When it looks like Frank is going to take over the city, Andrew Ryan deliberately fucks with the fundamental infrastructure of the city itself, threatening everybody within because...its private property and he can do what he wants with it, even though it will destroy the city.
Finally both Andrew Ryan and Frank Fontaine....regulate the Free Market in order to win their wars. Because even though that goes against every Objectivism stands for...it also is in their best interest.
Again and again, within the logic of objectivism, Rapture fails, because a society built upon selfish bastards is not going to make a free market, it is going to turn into a dictatorship.
Bioshock Infinite was just bad though.
#Ask EvilElitest#Bioshock#Andrew Ryan#Rapture#Ayn Rand#Atlas Shrugged#frank fontaine#objectivism#Libertarians#Going Galt
65 notes
·
View notes
Note
Republicans: Democrats hate America
AOC: Raising money for aid to texans
Biden: Sends generators to Texas
Republican: Stop ask for handouts! Ted Cruz already went to Cancun to conserve powers! Wtf are we supposed to do with these generators? This is all green energy’s fault! *Pretends wind turbines aren’t used in some of the coldest parts of the world and that the natural gas systems weren’t also hammered by the cold.*
Yeah incidents like the clusterfuck in Texas is a really good reveal of the dirty secret of Republican policies is that they hurt their own people. Like the fight between the Left and the right is often phased as “Big goverment vs. Small goverment” but it is actually “Good goverment vs. rank incompetence.”
104 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
lafvrthingsblog-blog
lafvrthings.
4realstunna
STUNNA4REAL
elferum-blog
Elferum
whumpgarden
Whump Garden
jonismitchell
the prophecy;