The U.S. War Machine

Let’s stop pretending the U.S. is a reluctant world police officer, dragged into conflict by duty or democracy. The truth is uglier: The U.S. war machine exists to prop up imperial interests, feed the military-industrial complex, and maintain global dominance. It’s not about freedom and it never was.

The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing … they’re not building weapons for defense. They’re building profit pipelines, and their stock value depends on war. It’s no coincidence that conflicts abroad send defense stocks soaring. War is an investment, and the return is drenched in blood.

We’ve normalized endless war. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, some Americans couldn’t even locate these countries on a map, but their tax dollars funded drone strikes, invasions, coups, and occupation. These aren’t defensive wars, they’re acts of aggression dressed up in patriotic drag (which is much better and more American than drag queens.) The U.S. war economy requires perpetual enemies. If they don’t exist, we invent them.

U.S. imperialism isn’t just about boots on the ground. It’s about toppling governments that won’t play ball with Western capital. Iran in 1953. Chile in 1973. Haiti, Guatemala, the Congo. The list goes on. When diplomacy doesn’t serve U.S. interests, regime change becomes the foreign policy of choice. Empire with a smile.

The justification for U.S. imperialism is still the same colonial lie: “We’re bringing civilization.” Only now it’s rebranded as democracy promotion and humanitarian intervention. But we’re not spreading democracy, we’re spreading McDonald’s, oil pipelines, military bases, and sweatshops. And if a country resists? Sanctions, bombs, and coups.

While the Pentagon devours over $800 billion a year, Americans go bankrupt from medical bills, ration insulin, and drown in student debt. Empire is expensive. It always comes home. It militarizes police, surveils dissent, and turns the nation into a fortress built on fear. Meanwhile, infrastructure crumbles and the planet burns. And we want to bring more children into this wasteland so they can keep feeding the war machine when they turn 18, but they come back with PTSD and have to wait until they’re 21 to have a drinking problem because of it.

The war machine doesn’t protect us. It protects capital. Real security comes from housing, healthcare, education, and dignity. Not aircraft carriers and drone fleets. It’s time we stop worshiping the military and start dismantling it. That means defunding the Pentagon, ending the imperialist wars, and refusing to let our lives serve empire.

“All Libertarians Are Scum”? Not So Fast

Recently, I told someone I was a libertarian socialist. Their response? “All libertarians are scum.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard that sort of reaction. And I get it–libertarian is a poisoned word in the U.S. For most Americans “libertarian” evokes the image of a smug tech bro hoarding Bitcoin, quoting Ayn Rand, and arguing that child labor laws are tyranny. That brand of libertarianism–individualist, capitalist–has dominated the label in the U.S. for decades.

But that’s not what libertarian socialism means.

Libertarian socialism is anti-authoritarian leftist tradition. It’s about dismantling both state and capitalist hierarchies. It stands opposed to top-down government and to concentrated private power. It believes freedom doesn’t mean “I get to exploit people without interference.” It means collective self-determination, mutual aid, and horizontal organization. It’s about organizing society around human needs and not profit.

If you’re familiar with anarchism, council communism, or even some strains of syndicalism, you’ve brushed shoulders with libertarian socialism. It’s the politics of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and the Zapatistas in Mexico–not Ayn Rand and Elon Musk.

The confusion stems from a linguistic hijacking. In much of the world–especially in Latin America and Europe–libertarian has long been associated with the left. The term was originally used by anarchists to distinguish themselves from authoritarian Marxists such as Stalin and Pol Pot. In fact, in 19th century France, libertaire was often a stand-in for anarchist, especially when anarchism was censored of criminalized.

But in the U.S., thanks for Cold War politics, capitalist rebranding, and a lot of Koch brothers’ money, “libertarian” came to mean something closer to “I think poor people should die faster.” The right-wing libertarians here have tried to claim the whole world, but that doesn’t mean they own it.

So when I say I’m a libertarian socialist, I’m not trying to split the difference between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, I’m saying I want a world without billionaires or bureaucrats. I’m saying we need both freedom and equality, not as competing values, but as inseparable ones.

Here’s the core idea:

You’re not free if you spend your life working for someone else just to survive.

You’re not free if your boss can dictate your every move because they control your livelihood.

You’re not free if the government props up corporations while criminalizing poverty.

Libertarian socialism rejects the false choice between “state control” and “corporate control.” We want neither. We want self-control. We want power in the hands of communities, workers, and individuals, not oligarchs and technocrats.

So no, not all libertarians are scum. Some of us are trying to burn down the same systems you are, just from a different angle.

A Movie Star and Reality Show Star President

What does it say about conservatives that their two idols are Reagan: a polished actor who turned smiling while gutting social programs into an art form. He kicked off the modern era of trickle-down economics, mass incarceration, union busting, and “government is the problem” rhetoric. He was the velvet glove over the iron fist of neoliberalism.

Then there’s Trump: A brash, gold-plated conman who ditched the velvet glove entirely and wrapped the fist in a red hat. He turned politics into a circus, embraced open corruption, and fed white grievance politics with a firehose.

So what does it say that these two are the main idols of conservatives and the Republican party?

It says they worship aesthetics over ethics. Reagan sold the dream while hollowing it out; Trump hawks the nightmare as a feature. Together, they represent the conservative id: nostalgia, hierarchy, wealth worship, and cruelty–first dressed in a cowboy hat, then in a golf cap.

Reagan and Trump are less political figures and more myths–icons of conservative longing. But the values they embody reveal a lot about the psychology of the American right.

Conservatives idolized Reagan for what he symbolized:

A return to tradition after the upheaval of the 60s and 70s–code for putting women, people of color, and the working class back in their place. He was patriotic, optimistic, and deeply hollow. He gutted the social safety net, helped catalyze the AIDS crisis through negligence, and kicked off the war on drugs that became a war on Black communities.

His trickle-down economics, which conservatives still cling to like a religion despite 40+ years of evidence that it doesn’t work was sucked up and hoarded.

Reagan is idolized not because he helped people, but because he helped the right people–corporations, the rich, and white suburbia–feel good about stepping on everyone else.

Then you have Trump. Where Reagan was the polished actor, Trump is the reality TV boss–all ego, rage, and spectacle. His rise didn’t replace Reaganism it revealed what was always beneath it:

Open authoritarianism instead of coded dog whistles.

Grievance politics centered on the loss of white, male, Christian dominance.

Blatant corruption celebrated as “winning” by his followers.

What do these two say about conservatives as a whole? They value dominance over democracy. Both reinforced hierarchies: racial, economic, gendered, and that’s the point. The conservative movement today isn’t about ideas, it’s about keeping their group on top.

They prioritize feelings over facts. Reagan made conservatives feel safe. Trump makes them feel powerful. The results don’t matter. It’s vibes all the way down.

They replace accountability. Reagan dodged responsibility for Iran-Contra. Trump dodges it for everything. In both cases, the base cheers the escape, not the truth.

They long for a mythical past. Reagan promised a return to a golden age that never existed. Trump promised the same only louder, meaner, and with more gold plating. Both feed the same nostalgia machine that keeps people looking backward instead of forward.

Worshiping Reagan and Trump isn’t about policy. It’s about identity, fantasy, and fear. One sold the myth with a smile. The other screamed it into a megaphone. Either way, it’s about clinging to a dying order and pretending it’s salvation.

They’re not ideologically consistent heroes, they’re mascots of the decline.

Official Member of the Democratic Socialists of America

I recently received my membership card from the Democratic Socialists of America. I also donate a few bucks a month to this organization. Now, you may be saying, “But Kafkaphony, you’re a Libertarian Socialist. What’s this about?”

Well, libertarian socialists don’t have a website because they are more decentralized by nature. Libertarian socialists are inherently suspicious of centralized power–even in organizations. So creating a single “official” website or group is contradictory to a lot in the movement. Also, the DSA has membership dues, elected leadership, and is involved in electoral politics. Libertarian socialists reject those kinds of structures, which means they lack the resources to build or maintain polished sites or public campaigns.

So, how can I be a libertarian socialist and donate to the DSA? I like to work within the DSA for strategic reasons. The DSA is a “big tent” and includes: Marxists, social Democrats, Democratic socialists (obviously), libertarian socialists, and even some anarchists and syndicalists.

The DSA is a vehicle, not an identity. It’s a way to build power, influence policy, and meet like-minded people, even if the ultimate goal (like abolishing the state or capitalism entirely) goes beyond what the DSA is currently pushing.

I prefer to use the DSA to push for reforms that improve people’s lives now, even if the long-term goal is revolution or abolition of hierarchies. I use it for organizing opportunities like meeting people who might be down for more radical actions outside of the DSA. It’s also for learning skills, gaining political, experience, and building networks.

There will be disagreements between the two though. The DSA sometimes supports electoral politics, which some libertarian socialists reject. However, it’s the best we’ve got right now. I don’t have to buy into the DSA’s entire platform.

I plan on using the DSA to connect with organizers, practice power building, and to push for transformative demands, but I’m always keeping my eye on the bigger picture: dismantling capitalism, hierarchy, and the state–not just reforming them. I’m looking for shared goals and ways to push the DSA further left by putting theory into action.

Does Socialism Mean that Everyone Will be Poor?

One of the most common myths about socialism is that it makes everyone equally poor. It’s a talking point used to scare people away from the idea of economic justice, but it’s far from the truth. In reality, socialism isn’t about dragging everyone down. It’s about lifting everyone up.

What is Socialism Really About?

At its core, socialism is about making sure wealth and resources are distributed more fairly. It doesn’t mean no one can be successful or that everyone has to live in the same conditions. Instead, it prioritizes meeting basic human needs–like healthcare, education, and housing–so that no one is left behind while a small elite hoards obscene amounts of wealth.

Under capitalism, wealth tends to concentrate at the top, leaving millions struggling to get by. In contrast, socialist policies aim to level the playing field by ensuring that the economy serves the majority, not just the privileged few.

But Won’t That Lead to Poverty?

This is where the misconception comes in. Critics argue that socialism discourages innovation and hard work, leading to economic stagnation. But history shows otherwise. Many countries that have adopted socialist policies–especially in areas like healthcare, worker protections, and public services–have some of the highest standards of living in the world.

Take the Nordic countries, for example. While they’re not fully socialist, they implement strong socialist policies: universal healthcare, free education, and robust social safety nets, The result? High wages, low poverty, and some of the happiest populations on the planet.

Who Really Stays Rich Under Capitalism?

If you’re worried about socialism making you poor, ask yourself: Is capitalism actually making you rich? For most people, the answer is no. Wages have stagnated while billionaires multiply their fortunes. Basic necessities like housing, education, and healthcare are increasingly out of reach for the average person.

Socialism doesn’t mean equal poverty. It means ensuring that wealth isn’t locked away by a tiny elite while the rest of society struggles. It’s about making sure the economy works for all of us, not just those born into wealth and power.

At the end of the day, the real question isn’t whether socialism will make everyone poor. It’s whether we’re okay with an economic system that keeps most people struggling while a handful live in unimaginable luxury.

Elon Musk’s Breeding Fetish

I’ve always thought Elon Musk has a creepy breeding fetish. Hey, I’m all for fetishes, let that freak flag fly, but not when it comes to bringing more people into the world. Blow your load into someone all you want as long as she’s on birth control or you’ve had a vasectomy. Aside from that? Wear a condom or don’t have sex at all. Contrary to what Apartheid Clyde says, we don’t need more people on this planet.

His obsession with population growth seems to stem from his belief that declining birth rates in developed countries could lead to a societal and economic collapse. He has repeatedly expressed concern that a “collapse” of civilization could occur if the global birth rates continue to fall. I say let the collapse happen. We as a society, we as civilization have failed miserably. This little homo sapien experiment didn’t work. Destroy all of it and either start over or don’t. I’ll be dead and won’t care one way or the other.

Apartheid Clyde’s neediness for wanting others to breed and his own having fourteen kids doesn’t have to do with anything altruistic for the planet or civilization. There are several problems with his obsession with birth rates:

It ignores environmental limits. The planet is already struggling with overpopulation in terms of resource consumption, pollution, and climate change. Pushing for more births ignores the ecological consequences of an ever-growing human footprint.

His stance also aligns with capitalist concerns about shrinking labor forces and economic stagnation rather than a genuine concern for human flourishing. A declining population could be beneficial in terms of resource distribution, quality of life, and sustainability. Also, if Apartheid Clyde truly believes in AI and automation replacing human labor, then a shrinking workforce shouldn’t be a problem. His push for higher birth rates contradicts his own predictions about technological advances reducing the need for human workers.

It’s also easy for a billionaire with immense resources to advocate for having many children. Most people don’t have the luxury to provide for large families in a world where wages stagnate, housing costs soar, and healthcare remains inaccessible.

There’s also an authoritarian aspect to his desire for population growth. His rhetoric could feed into dangerous population policies, where governments or societies pressure people into having children against their will. Historically, state-driven population growth policies have led to human rights abuses, especially against women.

And what about us that are already here? Why not focus on improving conditions for existing people–healthcare, education, workers’ rights, and wealth redistribution–Apartheid Clyde fixates on increasing birth rates as its quantity is more important than the quality of life.

Civilization isn’t doomed, as he seems to think. The whole “civilization collapse” is a myth. Societies can adapt through better resource management, immigration, and restructuring economic models rather than resorting to a blind push for more births.

Ultimately, Apartheid Clyde’s obsession seems less about genuine human well-being and more about maintaining a system that benefits people like him–billionaires who can rely on endless economic expansion, cheap labor, and a future workforce to exploit.

How a Libertarian Socialist Society Would Work

I’ve already stated my political leanings and they are very far to the left. We’re seeing what the far right can do to a society and it’s horrible. We’re seeing it now. Some people saw it in Nazi Germany. The far right is dangerous and should be destroyed. Capitalism itself should be destroyed.

So, what would a libertarian socialist society look like? I’ve been reading more and more about my political leanings and coming up with how the United States would look under libertarian socialism and here’s what I’ve come up with:

First and foremost, it would prioritize decentralization, have direct democracy, and collective ownership while abolishing capitalist wage labor and hierarchical state power. It would be built on cooperation, bottom-up structures that allow the people, not managers or CEOs to manage their workplaces and communities without coercion from a centralized authority.

How it would affect the economy and community

There would be no private ownership of production. That means factories, farms, and businesses would be collectively owned and managed by workers and communities. Instead of bosses, workers would directly organize production through democratic assemblies and councils. Goods and services would be distributed based on need, contribution, or through participation rather than profit-driven markets. All economic decisions would be made through federated councils of workers and consumers rather than dictated by a federal government or market forces.

How it would affect politics

Instead of a government ruling over people, power would be held in local, self-managed assemblies where absolutely everyone has a say in decisions affect them and their lives. Local communities would coordinate with each other ensuring cooperation without a top-down hierarchy. There would be no politicians. We’re all sick of them anyway, right? Instead, think about it: communities and workplaces would elect temporary, recallable delegates with strict limited power.

Free Association and Mutual Aid

People would contribute to society based on their ability and receive according to their need. For those of us, like me, who are disabled, no one would be forced to work to survive. People would contribute according to their abilities, and those unable to work would still be valued as full members of the society.

Land, housing, and natural resources would be collectively maintained and distributed according to democratic principles. People would form communities and organizations based on voluntary cooperation rather than state enforcement.

Now, some of you may be wondering how justice might work. Will there still be police and prisons? I think we can all agree that for-profit prisons have to go. Prisons will be meant for rehabilitation. That is what the society would look like: conflict resolution, justice focusing on rehabilitation, community accountability, and non-punitive solutions.

Work and Leisure

With production driven by human needs instead of profit, people would work fewer hours and have more time for leisure, education, and creativity. Who wouldn’t want a society like that? There would also be lifelong learning. Decision-making would be central to civic life.

Technological advances would be used to reduce labor, improve well-being, and enhance sustainability.

Healthcare

Healthcare would be free and universally accessible, including specialized care for the disabled, including mental health services. Caregiving would be shared responsibility rather than an individual burden, ensuring that people who need support receive it without being financially or socially isolated.

Leadership

Now, you’re probably wonder who would run such a society. Where there be a president? A leader? A kind? What kind of leadership would there be? If there were a leadership role in a libertarian socialist society, it would be more of a coordinator or spokesperson chosen by democratic means, with limited power and subject to recall at any time. Governance would be more about collective decision-making through councils, federations, or assemblies rather than a single executive figure.

Utopia

Would a libertarian socialist society be a utopia? No. There’s no such thing as a utopia. People aren’t perfect and conflicts will arise. The democratic structures would allow for ongoing problem-solving and adaptation without authoritarian control.

If I’m being honest, it would be messy and experimental at first, with different regions trying different forms of organization. The core principles would remain though: maximizing freedom and equality by ensuring that power is always distributed among the people rather than concentrated in a ruling class.

If you’ve read this far, I thank you. These are just my ideas of what a libertarian socialist society would look like based on my reading of the system and researching it and reading a shit load of Noam Chomsky and Peter Kropotkin. I haven’t read much by Mikhail Bakunin, but he’s on my list and I’m curious about his ideas of what a society should be.

So, what do you think? Would you live in this type of society? I for one am tired of capitalism and would jump at the chance to try something new.

The Final Dividend

(Foreward: A dear friend of mine encouraged me to write this. It took a couple of days to get the ideas down and get me thoughts together. I hope you enjoy it. And thank you to V a.k.a. “the forgottenblog1.)

The world’s last remaining stock market boomed. It was the only one left, because there was no one left to trade but them.

It had started as a whisper in boardrooms, a casual joke among the ultra-rich: “What if we just got rid of everyone else? The poors? The lowest of the low? What if it was just us elite billionaires?” They has always treated the rest of the population as a liability: wages to be cut, benefits to be slashes, lives to be extracted for profit. But then, someone finally asked the real question: Why not eliminate the expense entirely?

At first, they used the usual methods: starving out the poor through manipulated supply chains, forcing millions into homelessness while hoarding resources. Governments, long in their pockets, stood by. Then they accelerated the process. Bioengineered pandemics swept through the slums and working class neighborhoods, perfectly tailored to spare those who had access to the right treatments. Automated drones enforced curfews in the name of “public safety,” but only ever seemed to fire upon protestors. AI-controlled banking systems ensured that those without wealth found themselves unable to access even the most basic necessities.

Then came The Dividend.

It was announced through a simple memo, circulated among only the elite:

“Congratulations, shareholders. Effective immediately, the burden of the lower classes has been liquidated. Your assets will now be divided amongst the survivors.”

And just like that, the last of the workers were gone.

At first, they celebrated. The billionaires threw opulent parties in their isolated compounds, toasting to their genius. The world was finally efficient. No more whining about wages, no more regulations, no more taxes. They had reached the pinnacle of civilization: an Earth owned and operated by the few who truly mattered.

But soon, cracks began to show.

The automated factories still produced goods, but who would innovate, repair, and improve them? The fields of genetically modified crops stretched for miles, but the systems that maintained them required technicians–people who had been deemed expendable. The billionaires, so accustomed to being catered to, found themselves unable to do anything beyond shifting numbers on a screen.

Worse, the infighting began almost immediately. Without an external enemy, they turned on each other. One by one, they disappeared. Eliminated by poisoned wine, rigged self-driving cars, security drones that “malfunctioned.” Each death resulted in a wealth redistribution among the remaining few.

The final survivor sat alone in his penthouse, overlooking a silent, empty city.

The stock market was at an all-time high.

And there was no one left to spend a dime.

Explaining Libertarian Socialism to a Child

Libertarian socialism is the belief that people should be free from both government control and corporate power. It’s about creating a society where workers and communities make decisions together, rather than being ruled by politicians or bosses.

Imagine a workplace where everyone has a say in how things are run instead of a CEO calling all the shots. Or a neighborhood where people work together to solve problems instead of waiting for the government to step in. Libertarian socialists want a world built on cooperation, fairness, and shared resources without the need for big government or a ruling class.

It’s “socialist” because it opposes capitalism and wealth hoarding , and it’s “libertarian” because it values personal freedom and opposes authoritarian control

It’s about people sharing and making decisions together, instead of having a big boss or a big government telling them what to do.

Imagine if your toys belonged to everyone, and you and your friends decided together how to play with them. Nobody gets to take all the toys for themselves, and nobody gets to be the only boss. Everyone helps, everyone shares, and everyone is free to do what makes them happy without someone being unfairly in charge.

For liberals:

Libertarian socialism is like taking democracy and applying it everywhere, including the workplace. You already believe in democracy for government. But in capitalism, businesses are run like little dictatorships, where the boss has all the power. Libertarian socialism means workers and communities having a say in the decisions that affect them, so workplaces are democratic, wealth is shared more fairly and corporate power doesn’t run everything. It’s about freedom, but also fairness. You get to keep your personal rights, but without billionaires hoarding all the resources and rigging the system.

For conservatives

Libertarian socialism is about real freedom, freedom from both government overreach and corporate control. Right now, big businesses control the economy, and the government props them up while crushing small businesses and workers instead of relying on government handouts or corporate bosses, libertarian socialism means people working together directly to run things, like worker-owned businesses and community-driven solutions. It’s about keeping power in the hands of everyday people instead of elites, whether they’re in Washington or Wall Street.

Why I Became a Socialist

I was raised in a Republican family. For the longest time, that’s just what I thought I was supposed to be because that’s what my family was. I supported George W. Bush up until he invaded Iraq. I was all about “rah! rah! guns for everybody!” in my youth. While I still own guns, I think there need to be stricter laws, closed loopholes, and no, not everyone needs to have a fucking gun. “But the Second Amendment!” Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look up the definition of “amendment” and get back to me.

As a teen I was obsessed with Ayn Rand. Maybe it was just me being an edgy teenager, but I was all “Yeah! Every man for himself! To hell with everyone else!” I’ve grown and matured and after re-reading Atlas Shrugged eight years ago. I learned that her philosophy is self-serving and does no one any good. Not to mention, she turned toward government help later on in her life so what a hypocrite. It’s funny. Every time capitalism spirals into crisis, socialist-inspired policies step in to save it. The same people who attack socialism are often the first to demand government help when capitalism crashes. If capitalism actually followed its own “sink or swim” logic, it wouldn’t have survived this long.

To be honest, I didn’t care much for politics until the rise of Donald Trump. His presidency made me more engaged. His corruption, authoritarianism, and the broader failures of the system reinforced my belief that capitalism and electoral policies alone won’t fix anything. I used to think no matter what party the President aligns himself with, they have the good of the country at heart deep down. After both of Trump’s wins, I no longer believe that. Just like Ayn Rand, Trump is self-serving and in it for Trump and his brand.

I’ve always considered myself a misanthrope. Hell, I even have the word “misanthrope” tattooed on my arm. I don’t want to go so far as to say I hate other people, but I am deeply distrustful of them and the systems they create. No one wants to help others anymore. It’s all “me, me, me!” With socialism, it’s about helping your fellow man. Not everyone is in it for themselves when it comes to socialism. It’s a collective effort to make the world a better place than we found it. Capitalism is nothing but “how can I get richer?” and “I want to get ahead no matter how many people I have to trample underfoot to do so.”

I’ve also been doing more reading and research. People like Albert Camus, Emil Cioran, and Noam Chomsky are people I hold in high regard. Camus’ idea of the absurd is about the conflict between human desire for meaning and a meaningless universe. Capitalism mirrors this: it promises purpose through work, consumption, and success, but ultimately, it’s an empty grind. The absurdity of capitalism is that it demands people dedicate their lives to meaningless labor while pretending it’s freedom. Camus believed in revolt — not in the sense of violent revolution (although at this point, I support that), but in refusing to submit to oppressive structures. When this is applied to capitalism, it means rejecting the illusion that the system is natural or inevitable. Instead, we can challenge it, disrupt it, and refuse to play by its rules.

Noam Chomsky is a relentless critic of capitalism. He argues that real democracy is impossible under capitalism because corporations and the wealthy control political decisions. Elections are a spectacle. Real power is concentrated in unelected institutions such as corporations, lobbyists, and banks. He teaches us to organize outside of electoral politics. Build movements that can apply pressure beyond just voting.

And what could I possibly learn from Mr. “Everything Sucks” Emil Cioran? Cioran believed that humans cling to illusions: progress, meaning, and success to avoid confronting the void. Capitalism sells the biggest illusion: that endless work and consumption lead to fulfillment. In reality, it’s a treadmill of disappointment. No matter how much you achieve or accumulate, it’s never enough. What I get from Cioran is that exposing capitalism means stripping away its illusions and showing people that its promises are hollow.

I’ve become frustrated with online complaining and simply waiting for the next election cycle to make changes. I want direct political disruption. Protests don’t work like they used to so I want new, fresh ideas to challenge capitalism. Ultimately, I’ve become frustrated with the whole capitalist system whether it’s healthcare, economic inequality, or corporate control. I see capitalism as unsustainable and in need of radical change.

Trumpism has taken over and even the Democrats are too chicken shit to do anything about it. Trump is just a belligerent old man who, if he could, rule the world if given enough power. I’m tired of power being in the hands of the wealthy. I want the common people to rise up and fight this oppressive system, and there are more of us than there are of them so what the hell are we waiting for?

Or maybe I became a socialist just because I listened to way too much Rage Against the Machine. Who knows?