Same in France during WWII, centrist and a good part of the socialists gave full power to far-right military dictatorship

So yeah, some people in France would need a quick recap of the past century history

Im not entirely sure i understood everything but is donation the solution you’re looking for?

That lies on the the other side of the libertarian spectrum, the anti-capitalist one, which you can call anarchy to avoid confusion. Does not really match your meme that keeps the capitalist aspect of income as a key concept. Anarchy and (capitalist) libertarianism are really incompatible, since one fights against capital and the other fights for it. In french we distinguish those two philosophies with two words, libertaire (anarchist) and libertarien (libertarian). Since it does not exist in English, i strongly recommend you use Anarchism or social Libertarianism when you want to mean anti-capitalist Libertarianism, it helps avoid the confusion.

Thanks for asking, answers are useful to me too :D

From what Internet tells, it’s in the Calculus Affair, but I cant remember for sure

Most of the ones I used are in french, either puns on celebrities’ names or cultural references My favourite one is Captain Haddock saying “I do find that funny” with a very serious face

Je sais pas vraiment si c’est de l’argot, mais moi c’est gloubiboulga. Quand j’étais gamin ça me faisait beaucoup rire d’entendre mes parents dire ça, et ça m’amuse toujours un peu aujourd’hui

Agree with you, depending on the anarchist theory hierarchy disappears more or less but never entirely. It depends on the system chosen and modified by peoples though, so these example may not apply to some anarchist societies, especially the part about the children if you consider what anarchist thinkers wrote and experimented about education

Well, from what i learned too, this notion of public service is quite discussed as cases such as yours might arise when we have a mix of public service and private companies.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the law was unclear and that you are encountering one of many french laws’ grey area, where no one really knows what the exact procedure is.

Good luck anyway, hope you’ll find precise info from someone with better knowledge of this specific domain

Hi ! I have no definitive answer but i can give you some infos there

In french, the word “tendre” translates well to “to tend”, as both describe something that is preferred but not mandatory or necessary.

In this context, it seems indeed a bit strange. But, from the basic and general knowledge I have of french laws, “tendre” is not a specific word of the legal jargon, so I think the meaning implied here is the common meaning, which is quite the same as “to tend”. Someone with better knowledge of the french legal jargon could rectify me though.

From what i studied of french laws, public service is considered very important, and can lead to arbitrary infringements of private and personal property (like building roads or railways, it is mandatory to compensate owners of properties affected, but not really to have their consent). So “tends” could be the real meaning here, like “it’s better if you can get owner’s consent, but as you are building a service for everyone to use, you can do it without owner’s consent”.

It’s been some years since I learned all of this, so I might be wrong or it might be outdated.

Maid of Ace - Forever

Vortek’s - Tyranno

Les Ramoneurs de Menhir - Menez Daou

Haha you’re right I do Thx for sharing this :D

Im 25 so slowly leaving the young person sphere, but I do have CDs and I did buy some at concerts.

Im a metalhead, so it was mostly for metal bands, and maybe this is specific for this genre, but every show i went to, I saw CDs being sold. I think out of 20-25 concerts, i bought 5-6 CDs, that i mostly listen to in my car. Two of them were signed by the band, so this was one more reason to buy it.

When I don’t listen to metal, im into folk, rap or electro. I do have some folk CDs, that i listen to with my parents. But for rap and electro, everything happens online. My brother released a first rap EP, and printing on a CD was a very distant option for him and his crew, like ‘this would be cool but that’ s too much for now’. On the opposite, my friend who have a metal band immediatly started a crowdfunding to get their first EP printed on a small scale

I get that people may be bored of politics, this is legitimate. I disagree that it is a Lemmy’s problem though. Imho, decentralization and leaving Reddit are political decisions, opposing the up hand of big companies on social medias. So it seems to me that it is in the nature of Lemmy and Fediverse to be politically oriented. And even if you disagree that it is in their nature, maybe we can agree that it is logical that they tend to gather politically motivated peoples, as apolitical folks will probably stay on mainstream medias.

Yeah, sorry for the long answer mb

Agree with you on most points, especially that we should be cautious with the parallel we draw : we can and sometimes should draw them, but always keeping in mind the risk of promoting or minimizing horrors. My previous answer did not promote that enough, you’re right reminding it.

The question "is it comparable " always kinda triggers me because the answer is always yes.

Comparing does not mean saying X and Y are the same, nor are equal. It means evaluating how much X and Y are similar or different on various point. Like “Taylor Swift is a human and so is Julius Caesar. But Taylor Swift is alive, and Julius Caesar is not”. This is comparing, according to what I know of the term. So in theory, everything is comparable : when we say that something is not comparable, we mean that there is a difference on a specific point that should obfuscate all common traits we can find. In our case, it seems to be the death toll.

First I’m hoping you are in full support of Palestina and that deprecate Israel (different subject but if you value the death toll that much in political analysis, this would necessarily lead to this, which is fine by me)

Now on the subject of USA death toll, counting is kinda hard. Should we take into account the strategically kinda useless atomic bombs dropped at the end of the war? Should we take into account every war and massacre caused indirectly by the CIA? Should we take into account death caused by American weapons? Should we take into account death caused by capitalism (though obviously China “communist” dictature helped there too, so maybe this one would complicate things)?

I’m profoundly anti-state, so as much anti west imperialism than anti east imperialism, and maybe this is a bias for me. But to my eyes, this is comparable (not the same, sure, but comparable, even if it is to conclude that communist dictators were more cruals and usa more sneaky)

Still vote for them if you need though, just important to know who they are than blindfolding imo

Upvote for the trump point, im with you on this one Other questions are meaningless here imo, just because X did not commit the crimes Y did, does not mean they should be treated differently if they did crimes of their own

(Still better voting blue than voting red though, fuck trump)

Hello, did not understand everything so sorry in advance if i say anything dumb In France, we have a President, elected by every adult citizen. In theory, he does not lead the country, and chooses a Prime Minister for this task, who then comes up with a government. In practice though, the President (Macron for now) has a lot more power over the PM because he can revoke and name another Prime Minister. And as the Assembly also have the power to revoke PM, President generally chooses someone that the majority in the Assembly will accept, to avoid instability. So currently, Macron is the President and holds practical power over politics, Prime Minister is currently Attal, and is kinda the second in hand of Macron, and as the Assembly seems to change right now, Macron will probably choose someone else as PM, probably someone from the left.

Je suis d’accord, notre système “semi” présidentiel me paraît un défaut Une des difficultés que j’ai rencontrées en en parlant autour de moi, c’est que ça facilite la lecture politique pour pas mal de gens, en polarisant autour des personnalités plutôt que des partis : à mon sens, c’est en bonne partie pour ça que des partis peuvent pâtir de l’image de leur leader (coucou Melenchon) et qu’on peut construire des partis autour d’une personne plutôt que d’idées (coucou Macron) On me dira que c’est aussi le cas dans les régimes parlementaires, avec lea premier.e ministres ou les leader de partis, mais je pense que le côté suffrage universel pour élire le président n’y est pas pour rien. Genre sur le papier c’est simple et efficace : on a tous et toutes voté pour, donc la personne est forcément légitime à tout diriger. Et derrière ça engendre des tensions au sein des partis, autour de qui est censé diriger, qui est légitime, etc.

I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.