From my experience living in a country with Proportional Vote, one with First Past The Post and one with something in between (multiple representatives per electoral circle) my conclusion is that Democracy works best with variety and frequent change - you don’t want Stability, because that just entrenches some people in control of the State and inevitably leads to frequent abuse of that power for personal upside maximisation, including via outright corruption, as well as the steady takeover of the various mechanisms of the State (most notably the subversion of the supposedly independent Pillar Of Democracy which is the Judicial System, something you see reaching its natural outcome right now in the US).

Change and many eyes with many conflicting interests and a real likelihood of reaching power are the best way to delay and even undo the natural subversion of the State by the kind of people who seek power - which happens in all systems, not just autocratic ones - whilst the highly stable “Two Party Systems” in supposed Democracies are barely better than dictatorships in their resilience to the rotting of the State from the inside.

Proportional Vote, which isn’t at all Mathematically rigged for “stability” is the best system I’ve seen so far at keeping the politicians in power from pillaging and subverting the State, mostly because they fear both their coalition partners (Government there is always by coalition) finding it out and using it for political advantage (by loudly bringing down government and triggering new elections in order to capture more votes) and that the next government might very well be a wholly different coalition whose politicians are not “people like them” and would just love to catch and bring to Justice any funny business done by the previous guys.

In places with two dominant parties that alternate in power, the politicians of both those parties make lots of noise for the audience simulating deep differences but often are mates and frequent the same social circles and even when they’re not there’s generally on subjects like Corruption a “gentleman’s agreement” of “I don’t go after you in my turn and you don’t go after me in your turn”.

Not even PV systems are immune to crooked politicians but they certainly seem way more resilient to their actions and even much more capable of self-healing before the rot is too far along.

Most “center” “left” parties in Europe nowadays are just Neoliberals (pro-business, pro-privatisation, pumping up asset bubbles and generally bough and paid for by moneyed interest) and hence not really Left and often not even Center.

However all countries in Europe still have real Left parties (even the UK with it’s highly rigged First Past The Post voting system has the Green Party), though judging by the one in my own country (of which I am a member) there’s often this messy mix of people whose leftwing thinking is basically slogans from the Soviet Union (these being mainly people in their 60s and older) and people who grew up in the post ideology neoliberal age for whom leftwing is basically greed but for-the-group instead of the individual (hence you end up with Identity Politics which is a twisted subverted charicature of the Fight For Equality that far too often is dominated by people who are members of a group they were born into demanding shit for their group - instead of a broad push for Equality done on the basis if need an independent of the “group” people were born into, we have competing pulls for getting shit per group, with people said to be deserving or undeserving based on the genetics they were born with, thus far too often rewarding some people who are priviledged but have the “right genetics” whilst not helping those who have real need and yet were born with the “wrong genetics”).

I don’t really know if the present day Left can find a modern ideology and vision that’s not just a “branch of neoliberalism that doesn’t talk of Economics”, though the victory of the NFP in France, lead by Melenchon and his party rather than the old “moderate” mainstream party - called Socialist but not in any way form or shape so, but rather just neolibs plus performatice leftwing talk - gives me hope.

If people are hurting, some of them will listen to the arguments of the Far Right - “the blame is those other guys who don’t look the same as you” is quit an appealing argument for many.

There are two solutions for that:

• You try to get most people to really think deeply their politics, in a well informed way which puts aside tribalisms, thus reducing the take of far-right arguments.
• You remove the causes of the hurt, which at the moment it’s mostly end-stage Neoliberalism (basically the wealth people produce is incredibly ill distributed).

I reckon the first one is pretty much impossible (I mean, it would be great, but it doesn’t work for actual human beings, with all their tribalism and ignorant self-evaluations as not at all ignorant), whilst the second absolutelly is possible (and probably required, if only to stop the Environmental destruction of our planet and guaranteed the survival of our civilization).

Having lived in a country with Proportional Vote, that’s exactly it in my experience: all those other, mathematically-rigged, parliamentarian allocation systems are not broken Democracy, they’re subversions of Democracy that twist what is supposedly the will of the voters to achieve some other objective (generally we’re told it’s “Stability”, which curiously always end us as a power duopoly of parties whose politicians have to worry about getting votes far less than they would otherwise, and which are easilly corrupted by those with lots of money).

Democracy isn’t broken, it has however been subverted to control it in most of the West, very deeply so in some cases like the US.

Yeah, by European standards, I don’t think New Labour are even just Center-Right: they have far too much love for “businesses”, privatisation and deregulation to be an inch left of the traditional Right - in many ways they’re pretty much were the Tories were back in Thatcher’s day.

“Aujourd’hui, ma baguette est levée pour la France.”

(more or less)

This is The Guardian, a Liberal (not Left, Liberal) newspaper in Britain, a country whose only left of center (by European standards) party is the Green Party which has all of 4 seats out of 300 in Parliament now (and it used to be just 1, even though they had 1 million votes out of 40 million).

(Labour was once leftwing, before Blair’s Third Way, and when recently it’s members voted for it to go back to being Leftwing there was a massive smear campaign which included this very newspaper to bring down the leftie leader and put the neoliberals back in control of it).

From the point of view of the journalists, editors and board of The Guardian, even Social Democracy if “far left”.

Britain is maybe the most “like America” (but not on the good things) country in Europe, with a very similar voting system (First Past The Post) and with and Overtoon Window far more shifted to the Right than almost any other country in Europe (basically the Tories are a posher version of Orban) and their Press is one of the least trusted in Europe, and that includes The Guardian.

Think of The Guardian as a British New York Times.

If you want to see coverage of the French elections that’s not been twisted by a British hard-Neoliberal Private School Attending High Middle Class journalist in a newspaper that prides itself of being “opinion makers”, try Le Monde.

My hope is that Leftwing implements policies that undo large parts of the Money-is-King and Screw-You-Plebes Neoliberalism, thus removing at least part of the popular discontent and distrust (people feel poorer and yet the mainstream keeps telling them the Economy is Growing) that the Far-Right feeds on with their “the blame is those other people that are even worse of than you (not at all the super rich)” scapegoating.

Reduce the pain by making the State more supportive again and getting more “from those who can the most, to give to those who need the most” and you take the wind off the Far-Right’s sails.

As an European, I’m just happy that the cultural influence of the US has faded so much in the last couple of decades that even with massive amounts of American billionaire money trying to pump-up the Far-Right in Europe, it’s still but a pale shade of what’s going on in the US and, as we see, even that far-right wave seems to already be breaking: notice how already in the European Elections the Left grew in various Scandinavian countries (in my experience Northern European Countries, especially the Nordic ones, tend to be ahead of the rest of Europe in social and political terms).

There is hope on the horizon for Europe.

I am, however sad for Americans with leftwing principles, since even with a Biden victory the US will continue to be an ever more dystopic late-stage ultra-Neoliberal experiment bound for a Fascist takeover sooner or later (if not Trump now, some other Fascist will sooner or later ride the wave of misery - that the Democrates too, as hard Neoliberals, gleefully keep feeding - into the Presidence and ever more authoritarianism)

The far-right in Europe, with money from both Russia and American billionaires, has been ridding the wave of insatisfaction that’s the side effect of the very problems created by Neoliberalism (which is now in its natural end stage were wealth is far more concentrated than ever since the early XX century and social mobility is pretty much non-existent, hence why most people feel poorer and hopeless) which itself was created with billionaire money pumped into Think Tanks and buying politicians mainly in America in the late 70s, early 80s.

As I see it, the best way for the Left to disarm the the Far-Right is to undo most of Neoliberalism - go back to higher levels of State support and State control of strategical assets, free Education, Progressive taxation with excessive wealth heavilly taxed, and so on - thus removing the very cause of the popular insatisfaction that the Far-Right feeds on using a litany of “blame everybody but the rich” excuses.

At least some of this actually seems to be what the NFP has announced it will do.

Now, Macron (and his party) being hard core neoliberals will fight this tooth and nail, as will the EU because most of the governments there are neoliberals and things like the ECB as as pure neoliberal as it gets, so for starters, they will most definitelly try to help the ultra-rich in France more evade tax even more than now.

The other problem is that part of the NFP is the old centrist “left” party (the Socialist Party, which has nothing at all to do with Socialism) who were part and parcel of the Neoliberalization of French politics (a typical corrupt as hell mainstream “centrist” European party of the last 2 decades) and eventually suffered massivelly at the polls for it. That said, the fear of being made even more irrelevant will probably put a break on their corrupt neoliberal tendencies.

The good news is that, if the French Left manages to overcome the forces in France that will be arrayed against any undoing of Neoliberalism, that country is big enough to pretty much ignore EU pressure.

Just to illustrate the nature of that campaign, at one point and in order to accuse Corbyn of being anti-semitic, they said that he had sat on a panel in a conference where one of the members of the same panel compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis, “hence” (by association) Corbyn was an anti-semite.

The thing is, said member of the panel who compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis was a Jewish Holocaust Survivor.

If such words made Corbyn an anti-semite by association then, having said such words, said panel member would even more so have to be an anti-semite.

In other words, the anti-Corbyn campaign was so rabid ragingly extremist and sleazy that they were accused a Jewish Holocaus Survivor of being an anti-semite in order to try to taint Corbyn by association.

PS: And, by the way, this very newspaper - The Guardian - was an active participant in that campaign and published this slander, amongst others.

Sorry, but Russia has no legimitate grievances on anything that takes place inside of Ukraine.

Ditto on the NATO expansion and all that “argumentation” line you’re parroting: Russia and Ukraine are different soverign nations and none of them has any right to force the other to do anything, which does mean that it’s not up to Russia and never was the way Ukraine runs their government including which alliances they join, same as, for example, it was never up to the United States how Iraq was run (and why the American invasion of Iraq was just as immoral as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the “Saddam was a murderous dictator” is a totally bollocks excuse).

Up and until the point one of those nations actually harms the other, none of the has any right to do anything to the other and as it so happens, it was Russia that harmed Ukraine by invading it, so the only nation there with any legitimate grievances is Ukraine.

In fact since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Ukraine alone is the one nation of the two with legitimate grivances against the other.

Your whole “argument” is predicated on the notion that Russia as the large neighbouring nation has a say in the affairs of its smaller neighbouring nation Ukraine, which is just a nakedly imperialist view of the relations between states straight out of XIX century political thinking.

Russian and American, though in the latter it was very wealthy individuals funding Leave rather than the State.

The money for Cambridge Analytica came from the US, not Russia.

The riff-raff are the true believers (in Israel, most being brainwashed since childhood with racial supremacist beliefs).

The leadership are just Sociopaths.

Sociopaths do what they do, no matter how abhoring, for their own personal gain and satisfaction, and dying from radiation poisoning ain’t good or satisfying.

Even the most perfect Democracy will only ever represent the wishes of the voters in that country and never those of people who don’t have a right to vote there.

Democracy is only less war prone than dictatorships for those situations were there would be large losses, because lots of soldiers coming back home in cofins doesn’t go down well with voters.

For situations were there is a huge power imbalance Democracies can be just as war-mongering as the rest, which is why you see lots of military interventions of the US against small countries or countries with ill-trained armies and equipment two generations behind or even, as very heavilly done by the very gentleman quoted in this meme, remote bombing of people in other countries who have no chance whatsoever to retaliate: Obama had no problem whatsoever with remote murdering of people in far away lands because there was no significant path for that to harm him politically (and there wouldn’t be even if the US was a proper Democracy rather than the Theatre of Democracy it actually is).

The hypocrisy is how some leaders (most noteable Americans, but far from just them) pass Democracy as good for people in other countries - sure, them having their own Democracy there will probably be good for them, but you having a Democracy makes no difference to them as they don’t have a vote in your Democracy.

Don’t say, don’t ask.

His real crime was “Walking down the street whilst looking working class”.

I was already a dev in a small IT consultancy by the end of the decade, and having ended up as “one of the guys you go to for web-based interfaces”, I did my bit pushing Linux as a solution, though I still had to use IIS on one or two projects (even had to use Oracle Web Application Server once), mainly because clients trusted Microsoft (basically any large software vendor, such as Microsoft, IBM or Oracle) but did not yet trust Linux.

That’s why I noticed the difference that Red Hat with their Enterprise version and Support Plans did on the acceptability of Linux.

Just to add to this, early on there was no such thing as kernel modules, so you had to compile your own kernel with the hardware support you needed for anything beyond basic (if I remember it correctly, it was only basic processor stuff, keyboard and text mode VGA) hardware support.

CRT monitors internally use an electron gun which just fires electrons at the phosporous screen (from, the back, obviously, and the whole assembly is one big vacuum chamber with the phosporous screen at the front and the electron gun at the back) using magnets to twist the eletcron stream left/right and up/down.

In practice the way it was used was to point it to the start of a line were it would start moving to the other side, then after a few clock ticks start sending the line data and then after as many clock ticks as there were points on the line, stop for a few ticks and then swipe it to the start of the next line (and there was a wait period for this too).

Back in those days, when configuring X you actually configured all this in a text file, low level (literally the clock frequency, total lines, total points per line, empty lines before sending data - top of the screen - and after sending data as well as OFF ticks from start of line before sending data and after sending data) for each resolution you wanted to have.

All this let you defined your own resolutions and even shift the whole image horizontally or vertically to your hearts content (well, there were limitations on things like the min and max supported clock frequency of the monitor and such). All that freedom also meant that you could exceed the capabilities of the monitor and even break it.