Libertarian Socialist or Anarcho-Communist? Depends on Who’s Asking.

When a Democrat asks about my politics, I tell them I’m a Libertarian Socialist. It sounds just palatable enough to pass through their MSNBC filter. You get the “socialist” part—Bernie vibes, maybe some Chomsky seasoning—and “libertarian” makes it sound like I still believe in rights or property or some other adult word they can handle.

But when a Republican asks? I’m an Anarcho-Communist.

No soft edges. No training wheels. I want them to picture Molotovs, mutual aid, and the local Starbucks being reclaimed as a community kitchen. I want them to flinch like they just heard “abolish landlords” whispered behind their 401(k).

The thing is, it’s all the same to me. Libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism—both oppose capitalism, hierarchy, and the state. The labels are just different levels of shock therapy depending on who’s in front of me.

I’m not here to fit into anyone’s Overton window. I’m here to kick the damn thing open.

Democrats still think change comes from voting a little harder. Republicans think billionaires are their friends. I don’t have the patience to explain mutual aid to someone clutching a Pelosi bobblehead, or the difference between anarchism and chaos to a guy with a Punisher sticker on his pickup.

So I adjust the mask, not to deceive, but to translate. Because if you say “anarcho-communism” to a liberal, they hear “chaotic Stalinist death cult.” And if you say “libertarian socialist” to a conservative, they hear “soy boy who hates America.

I just believe no one should rule and no one should starve.

I want a world built on cooperation, not coercion. A world where communities thrive without CEOs, landlords, or billionaires buying bunkers while the world burns.

If that sounds extreme, maybe the problem isn’t the label. Maybe the problem is the system that makes those ideas sound extreme in the first place.

“One Big Beautiful Boot”–Trump’s Bill is Just Capitalism with its Mask Off

While liberals are pearl-clutching and conservatives are clapping like trained seals, the U.S. state just reminded us — again — that it only exists to protect capital and crush the poor.

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” just passed. A 1,000 page orgy of tax cuts for the rich, surveillance-state expansion, environmental vandalism, and open war on the working class. They’re not even pretending anymore. The boot isn’t just stomping, it’s doing it with patriotic fireworks and a press release.

What’s in this monstrosity?

Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, including “relief” on tips and gig work. Translation: handouts for bosses, crumbs for precarious workers.
Billions for border walls, ICE, and CBP. The U.S. is investing in a future where desperate people are hunted like animals.
Slashing Medicaid and food stamps, forcing people to work to death for scraps while the rich lounge in yachts subsidized by tax breaks.
Torpedoing climate policy. Clean energy incentives? Gone. Fossil fuel subsidies? Pumped full of cash.
Newborn “MAGA savings accounts” because nothing says “freedom” like indoctrinating infants into capital accumulation from day one.

They even raised the debt ceiling by $5 trillion so they could do it all without blinking. No panic over the deficit now because the spending serves power.

This bill is not “big” or “beautiful.” It’s discipline — state discipline in service of capital. It rewards extraction, exploitation, and domination. It punishes care, solidarity, and survival. It doesn’t just hurt the poor, it’s designed to remind them who’s in charge.

Liberals will write op-eds about how “deeply concerning” it is. Conservatives will call it a “victory for the American worker.” But those of us truly on the left know: both parties serve the same machine. One smiles while tightening the chains, the other spits in your face as it does. The illusion of reform is dead.

The state cannot be reformed. You don’t pass 1,000 pages of fascist legislation and pretend this system can be voted out of tyranny. This is why we fight for abolition, not revision. No tweaks. No “better Democrats.” No savior presidents. Burn the whole damn thing down.

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” -Emma Goldman (and probably your gut too.)

So what do we do now?

We organize. Not to win elections, but to build dual power, sabotage capitalist logistics, defend our communities, and imagine a world without the state and without billionaires.

We do mutual aid, we educate, we disrupt. We make it ungovernable.

Because if this is what law looks like then we owe it nothing but our resistance.

No masters. No “beautiful bills.” Just solidarity, sabotage, and the end of all empires.

Why Presidents Shouldn’t Pick Supreme Court Justices

Given the news about the Supreme Court’s rulings on all sorts of bullshit Trump executive orders, I felt I had to write my thoughts on it, and my thoughts are as follows:

There’s something deeply broken in the way we appoint Supreme Court justices in the United States.

Nine unelected individuals serve for life, with the power to decide the most intimate and far-reaching issues in our society: abortion, voting rights, corporate power, gun laws, and more. And how do they get that power? They’re handpicked by whichever president happens to be in office when a seat opens up. It’s a political jackpot, not a principled process.

That alone should make us question the system.

We’re told this is how democracy works: the president wins an election and earns the right to shape the future of the court. But let’s be real. Presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. The Senate–the body responsible for confirming nominees–can represent a minority of the country and still impose a majority decision. Lifetime appointments ensure that some justices rule for decades after the society that empowered them has changed entirely.

This is not democracy. It’s oligarchy in robes.

When presidents nominate justices, it’s not about qualifications. It’s about ideology. It’s about legacy. It’s about stacking the court with people who’ll interpret the law in ways that protect power. Every nomination turns into a televised culture war circus. Nominees dodge basic questions with rehearsed non-answers. Senators posture for the cameras. And the American public is left with yet another justice who serves power instead of people.

I have a better way: Independent Appointments

We need to take this power out of the president’s hands. Let’s create a nonpartisan judicial appointment commission, an independent body tasked with selecting justices based on legal expertise, ethical conduct, and a commitment to upholding the Constitution as a living, evolving document.

This commission could include former judges, constitutional scholars, and representatives from a diverse range of backgrounds, not politicians, not donors, and not partisan hacks. Their job wouldn’t be to pick someone “from the left” or “from the right.” It would be to ensure the court serves justice, not ideology.

It works in other countries. It can work here.

Trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows and for good reason. When people see a court stacked by partisan deals and rammed-through nominations, they stop believing it represents them. And when people lose faith in institutions, the whole system becomes unstable.

We don’t have to accept this.

We can demand a new way, one where the court reflects the people it serves, not the politicians who manipulate it.

It starts by taking the gavel out of the president’s hand.

Does Communism Kill Individuality?

Or Is That Just Capitalist Propaganda?

You’ve probably heard it before: “Communism doesn’t breed individuals.” It’s a go-to jab for anyone trying to defend capitalism as the champion of freedom, creativity, and self-expression.

But let’s stop and ask: Is that actually true? Or is it just one of those lazy talking points that people repeat without thinking?

The Claim:

Critics of communism love to say it crushes individualism. They’ll tell you it turns everyone into drones, serving the collective and losing all sense of self. No more art. No more weirdos. Just gray buildings and gray people, all saying the same thing in perfect unison.

Scary, right?

The Reality:

1. Not All Communism Is Stalin in a Bad Mood

There’s no single “communism.” What people usually mean is authoritarian state socialism—like Stalinism. But that’s not the whole story.

There’s also:

Libertarian socialism, which emphasizes radical freedom through collective liberation.

Anarcho-communism, which fights both capitalism and the state.

Council communism, where power is decentralized and workers run everything directly.

Not exactly hive mind territory.

2. Marx Wasn’t Anti-Individual

Marx’s whole project was about freeing people from wage slavery and letting them develop into full human beings. He didn’t hate individuality—he hated a system that forced you to sell your life by the hour just to survive.

“In communist society… the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” – Karl Marx

That doesn’t sound like someone who wants to erase you. It sounds like someone who wants you to have time to actually be you.

3. Capitalism Doesn’t “Breed Individuals” Either

Let’s be real. Under capitalism, your so-called “individuality” often boils down to which brand you consume or how well you perform on social media. You’re free to express yourself—as long as it sells. You can “be yourself,” but only if you can afford the entry fee.

Capitalism sells individuality the way fast food sells happiness: brightly packaged, deeply hollow.

4. Socialist Cultures Produced a Lot of “Individuals”

Ever heard of Dostoevsky? Eisenstein? Mayakovsky? Hell, even the Red Army Choir slaps. The USSR may have been authoritarian, but it wasn’t artistically sterile. And outside of the USSR, there were experiments like anarchist Catalonia and Yugoslavia that explicitly encouraged creativity and local autonomy.

Individuality didn’t die—it evolved.

Does authoritarian communism sometimes suppress individuality? Yes.

Does capitalism do the same, just with better marketing? Also yes.

The truth is: The system that actually supports individuality is the one that liberates you from economic coercion. That might be socialism. That might be anarchism. But it sure as hell isn’t wage slavery in a hoodie.

So next time someone says “Communism kills individuality,” ask them:

Does your job let you be yourself? Or just sell a version of yourself that keeps the shareholders happy?

Trump’s Iran War Talk Is Bush’s Iraq Invasion All Over Again

Donald Trump is at it again—saber-rattling about going to war with Iran. In recent speeches, he’s said things like, “We’re gonna have to hit Iran hard” and warned that Iran is “begging” for war. It’s the kind of talk that grabs headlines, fires up his base, and echoes the kind of imperial chest-beating that led us into Iraq in 2003.

If this feels familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this movie before. Trump is playing the same tired role George W. Bush did: the tough-talking cowboy standing up to the “axis of evil,” ready to bomb another country under the banner of “freedom” and “security.” But behind the performance lies the same playbook of distraction, destruction, and empire.

In the early 2000s, the Bush administration spent months building a case for invading Iraq—claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was connected to terrorism, and posed an existential threat to the U.S. None of it held up. But it didn’t matter. The invasion went forward, and the Middle East has been on fire ever since.

Now, with Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza drawing worldwide condemnation, the U.S. political class is eager to shift the narrative. And Iran—a longtime enemy and convenient scapegoat—is the perfect target. Trump’s recent comments aren’t just random bluster; they’re part of a larger strategy to re-center American power and to justify further U.S. entanglement in the region.

Bush lied about WMDs. Trump talks about Iranian “proxies.” Same trick, different jargon.

Yes, Iran supports armed groups in the region—so do we. The U.S. backs Israel’s military campaign with billions of dollars and weapons. Calling Iran the aggressor while ignoring our own role is imperial hypocrisy at its finest.

Just like Bush made Saddam into a caricature of evil to justify regime change, Trump is doing the same with Iran’s leadership. He paints them as irrational monsters, despite the fact that most of their actions have been responses to U.S. sanctions, assassinations, and Israeli airstrikes.

When presidents talk war, it’s rarely about what they say it is. For Bush, Iraq was about oil, military contracts, and reshaping the Middle East in America’s image. For Trump, war talk with Iran is a distraction from his legal problems, a way to appear “tough”, and a means of keeping the U.S. permanently tied to Israel’s military agenda.

Just like in 2003, the corporate media amplifies the danger without challenging the narrative. And just like then, liberals wring their hands but refuse to name the deeper problem: American imperialism and its bipartisan addiction to war.

Let’s not forget what war with Iran would mean. Iran isn’t Iraq. It’s bigger, more organized, and has powerful allies. A war would be catastrophic—not just for Iranians, but for the entire region. It would mean more dead civilians, more displaced families, more anti-American hatred, and another generation traumatized by endless war.

We’ve already seen what U.S. regime-change efforts do: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Each time, we’re told it’ll be quick, clean, and necessary. Each time, it ends in chaos.

Trump’s talk about war with Iran isn’t just dangerous—it’s a rerun of a bloody imperialist strategy that never ended. It’s Bush in 4K, with the same script and higher stakes.

If we want peace, we have to reject this cycle. That means opposing war no matter who’s selling it—Trump, Biden, or anyone else. And it means finally confronting the empire that keeps dragging us—and the world—into ruin.

Does Socialism Stifle Creativity?

One of the oldest, dustiest arguments against socialism and communism is that they supposedly stifle individuality and creativity. No more artists, no more inventors, no more rebels, just gray uniforms, gray buildings, and gray minds.

This idea gets dragged out every time someone suggests workers deserve rights or billionaires shouldn’t exist. But here’s the truth:

This claim is propaganda and it’s tired.

Yes, in some authoritarian regimes that simply called themselves communist (Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China), artistic and intellectual repression happened. That’s real. But equating all socialism with state authoritarianism is like saying all capitalism is just Enron and child labor in sweatshops.

Authoritarianism stifles creativity. Not socialism.

Let’s flip the script.

Capitalism loves to parade around as the champion of individuality. But unless your creativity makes more money? It’s worthless.

Under capitalism:

If your art doesn’t sell, it doesn’t matter.
If your innovation can’t be patented or monetized, tough luck.
If you’re too exhausted from your soul-crushing job to create? Oh well.

Creativity under capitalism is only celebrated if it turns a profit. Everything else? It gets buried.

Socialism doesn’t kill creativity. It frees it.

Under democratic socialism or libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism, creativity can actually flourish. Why?

Basic needs are met. You’re not working three jobs just to survive. You have time to think and make things.

Your worth isn’t tied to profit. You don’t need your poem to be a product. Your band doesn’t have to blow up on Spotify to matter.

Community matters. Creativity isn’t just for clout, it’s for connection.

Imagine millions of people who are free to paint, code, write, build, and dream — not because it’s marketable, but because it’s meaningful.

Let’s talk about some actual socialists:

George Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm as a democratic socialist.

Albert Camus was anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and deeply creative.

Nina Simone was a radical, a revolutionary, and raw.

Kurt Vonnegut was openly socialist and still endlessly imaginative.

Entire movements — Soviet avant-garde, worker theatre, Cuban film collectives, Indigenous co-ops — were built on socialist principles.

And let’s not forget that Marx and Kropotkin were writing philosophy and science, not just manifestos.

Bottom line: if communism killed creativity, we wouldn’t have all the radical art, music, theory, and rebellion.

If capitalism encouraged creativity, you wouldn’t be drowning in Marvel sequels, AI sludge, and corporate TikToks trying to go viral by pretending to be relatable.

So no. Socialism doesn’t stifle creativity. Capitalism just wants you to believe that so you don’t imagine something better.

The Government Just Gave Itself Permission to Ignore the Law

Let’s not sugarcoat this: the U.S. government is gutting what little remains of “checks and balances,” and most people are too distracted or disillusioned to notice.

Buried inside a House bill—unrelated to taxes, mind you—is a ticking time bomb aimed directly at the rule of law. A quiet little provision would block all funding to enforce contempt of court orders. Read that again. If this passes, the executive branch can ignore court rulings with zero consequences. It’s not just a loophole—it’s a license to violate the Constitution.

Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert, laid it out plainly: if the government defies a judge, nothing can be done to force compliance. No enforcement. No consequences. No rule of law. “The greatest effect of adopting the provision,” he warns, “would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable.” Translation: the courts become a theater of empty gestures, while the executive runs wild.

This isn’t theoretical. The Trump administration has already ignored court orders, including the Supreme Court’s ruling to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from a black-site-style detention in El Salvador. They just didn’t do it. And now? They’re trying to make that standard operating procedure.

This is what a dying democracy looks like: not in flames, but in red tape and fine print. Congress didn’t vote to abolish the Constitution—they just cut its funding.If you still think the system can be fixed from within, ask yourself: What happens when the system rewrites the rules to ignore its own crimes?

This is not just a Trump issue. This is a bipartisan rot. They’ve built a government that polices protestors, jails whistleblowers, and spies on everyone—but suddenly when it comes to holding itself accountable, it’s “too expensive” to enforce the law?

The lesson is clear: the government does not fear the courts. It fears accountability. And it will rewrite reality itself to avoid it.

Burn your illusions. The state is not your protector. It’s a self-perpetuating power machine, and it just found a way to cut the brakes.

Whatever Happened to Fun Conspiracy Theories?

Remember when conspiracy theories used to be fun?

Back in the day, the tinfoil hat crowd was busy decoding crop circles, talking about secret alien bases under the Denver Airport, and wondering if the U.S. Navy accidentally teleported a warship in the 1940s. Sure, it was a little kooky, but it was mostly harmless, speculative sci-fi for weirdos with late-night radio and too much time on their hands.

We used The Philadelphia Experiment. Area 51. Roswell. Government time travel, secret Nazi moon bases, reptilian shapeshifters in Buckingham Palace. Were any of them true? Probably not. But they were imaginative. They gave us something strange to chew on–a kind of Cold War campfire mythology. These were conspiracy theories born out of curiosity and skepticism, not hatred or delusion.

Then something changed.

Somewhere in the 2000s, the weird wonder of conspiracy gave way to a much darker, dumber version of itself. Suddenly, conspiracy theories weren’t about aliens and teleportation. They were about vaccines causing autism, school shootings being faked, or a Satanic cabal of pedophiles controlling Hollywood and the Democratic Party. Fun got replaced with fascism.

What the hell happened?

Well, a few things, actually:

The Internet democratized crazy and also monetized it. Back in the analog age, you had to seek out conspiracy theories. Now they’re pumped into your feed by Facebook’s engagement algorithm because rage and fear are profitable. Conspiracies became content and worse, career paths. Grifters realized they could make real money off your uncle’s paranoia.

The right also weaponized conspiracy. We went from wondering if the CIA was hiding aliens to wondering if the Clintons were drinking baby blood. This wasn’t random. The far-right figured out that conspiracy theories could undermine trust in institutions, turn people against science, and rile up an angry base. Enter QAnon, anti-vaxxers, climate denial, and a pile of corpses.

People also got lonelier, dumber, and more desperate. When capitalism gives you no future and every institution fails you, it’s no surprise people start reaching for “alternative truths.” Unfortunately, the ones being served up now are dumb, cruel, and designed to radicalize, not enlighten.

Conspiracies used to be about asking questions. Now they’re about refusing reality.

You can’t joke about the moon landing anymore without someone in the comments section trying to sell you ivermectin or ranting about drag queens. The vibe has shifted from goofy paranoia to militant stupidity.

So yeah. The fun is gone.

But maybe it doesn’t have to be.

Maybe it’s time we reclaim conspiracy culture–not to spread nonsense, but to fight absurdity with absurdity. Let’s bring back the tall tales, the surrealism, the while “what ifs” that made it feel like there was something strange and wondrous just under the surface of the everyday.

The world is already insane. Let’s make it weirder, not dumber.

The Lazy Argument Against Socialism

Every time someone dares to critique capitalism, someone inevitably lobs the same tired grenade: “What about the 100 million people killed by communism?”

It’s a rhetorical nuke meant to shut down debate. And like most nukes, it leaves behind more smoke than substance.

Let’s unpack it.

First, the death tolls often cited (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) come from sources like The Black Book of Communism, which bundle together famines, wars, executions, and sometimes even natural disasters under the label of “communist killings.” By that logic, capitalism is responsible for every death under every U.S.-backed dictatorship, every colonial empire, every war for resources, and every child who dies because their parents couldn’t afford insulin.

Want to play that game? Fine. Let’s talk:

Colonialism under capitalism killed tens of millions — India under British rule, Congo under Belgium, the Americas under British conquest.

The Atlantic slave trade was a capitalist enterprise. Tens of millions died or were enslaved for profit.

Modern capitalism kills 8 million people every year from poverty-related causes like hunger, unsafe water, and lack of healthcare. Quietly. Systemically.

If we’re comparing body counts, capitalism is still actively killing.

Authoritarianism is not socialism.

The atrocities committed by Stalin or Mao were products of totalitarian regimes — not the idea of socialism. If we’re blaming socialism for every tyrant who used the label, then we have to blame capitalism for Pinochet, Hitler (who privatized heavily), and every U.S.-armed strongman from Latin America to the Middle East.

It’s not the label that matters — it’s the structure of power.

Socialism, at its core, is about democratic control of the economy. It’s about prioritizing people over profit. When done right, it looks like universal healthcare, strong labor rights, public ownership of essential services, and economic dignity for all.

That’s not a death camp. That’s a lifeline.

There’s the “Freedom” myth of Capitalism.

The defenders of capitalism always fall back on the idea of “freedom” — the freedom to start a business, chase your dreams, and become the next Jeff Bezos.

But for most people, capitalism means the freedom to work 60 hours a week and still not afford rent. The freedom to die if you can’t pay for insulin. The freedom to drown in debt because you got sick or went to college. Capitalism promises opportunity, but mostly delivers exhaustion.

And let’s be real: billionaires don’t get rich by working hard. They get rich by owning things other people work hard to maintain.

Karl Marx didn’t create the Soviet Union. He didn’t build gulags. He sent his life writing about a world where ordinary people could live without being exploited. The fact that authoritarian regimes warped his ideas doesn’t erase the truth of what he fought for anymore than capitalist’s crimes erase the concept of free markets.

The irony? Under capitalism, Marx’s grave now charges admission. Even in death, the system tried to make a profit off of him.

Socialism doesn’t need to be perfect to be better. Capitalism isn’t judged by Stalin. Why should socialism be?

If you’re tired of a system where billionaires fly to space while kids go hungry, maybe it’s time to stop fear the word socialism and start fearing the status quo.

America Loses Every War it Declares…

… and that’s not an accident.

There’s a pattern no one seems to want to talk about: every time America declares a “”war” on something, it loses. Spectacularly. Repeatedly. Almost like it’s designed to fail–or at least never meat to succeed.

Let’s take a stroll down our hall of shame:

The War on Drugs

Launched in the 1970s and ramped up in the 80s, this war didn’t end drug use. It militarized police, packed prisons, and devastated communities (especially Black and brown ones). Meanwhile, Big Pharma ran its own cartel out in the open with opioids. The result? A multi-decade failure that somehow made drugs more common. But hey, prison stocks are doing great.

The War on Poverty

LBJ declared this one in the 60s. Ambitious? Sure. But instead of ending poverty, we got decades of underfunded programs sabotaged by both parties. Fast forward to now: wages are stagnant, homelessness is rising, and billionaires are joyriding to space. Poverty didn’t lose. It adapted, got a tech job, and learned to live in a car.

The War on Terror

We “won” this one by destabilizing the Middle East, fueling global extremism, and wasting trillions of dollars. Afghanistan? A 20-year disaster with a Taliban victory lap at the end. Iraq? Invaded based on lies. Terrorism didn’t disappear, it diversified and learned to livestream.

The War on Crime

What this really turned into was a war on poor people, especially people of color. Instead of addressing root causes–like inequality, housing, education–we militarized police, filled private prisons, and normalized, a surveillance state. Crime didn’t go away, it just got rebranded. And the police budget? It’s still the only socialist program America will never cut.

Losing is the business model. These “wars” aren’t meant to be won. They’re meant to be permanent. They justify bloated budgets, feed private industries, and generate endless political theatre. You can’t win a war if winning means ending the gift.

It’s not a bug, it’s the point.