this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
297 points (93.5% liked)

From Europe or about Europe

114 readers
1 users here now

From Europe

or about Europe

Basics:

Etiquette

Content:

Subject to mod taste:

Moderation style:

Bias disclaimer:

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Don’t you love how conservative voters are pro or anti war, depending on what their overlords say?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure 1953 was 72 years ago.

Nobody said it, I don't actually care it's just a compulsion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What's up with the flies above the sword handle?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Hands are dirty

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The stink of death and corruption attracts them?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

look how emaciated education is there with that cobweb on the globe at their table.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Rearmament isn’t optional but you can serve all of the tables if you have a fair taxation. Military specifically should be funded from wealth rather than income, after all military protects wealth while regular Joe can click the computer at a company regardless of who’s in charge.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I thought that was the cops' job, military protects the working class as well.

while regular Joe can click the computer at a company regardless of who’s in charge.

Elaborate please.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There are people who work but don’t own things. There are those who own things but don’t work. In case of war those who own things lose due to destruction war causes. It’s in the interest of those who own things to finance their defence. Situation of those who don’t own things doesn’t change that much, they’ll pay rent to someone else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In my experience the vast majority of the upper class are the least interested in defence. They just move their money and movable assets somewhere far away.

Situation of those who don’t own things doesn’t change that much, they’ll pay rent to someone else.

If there is anything left to rent. As you said, the destruction leaves very little untouched, and then they either have to move or stay homeless.

Progressive taxation is still the best move imo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If there is anything left to rent. As you said, the destruction leaves very little untouched, and then they either have to move or stay homeless.

Which they were always at risk of and had to account for even without war. It’s not a binary thing of course though.

Progressive taxation is still the best move imo.

I’m for all kinds of taxes if that wasn’t evident enough :D

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Just if we could actually pay for what we wanted

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Maybe sadly, but definitely necessarily in Europe's case.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

perhaps they can grow their military while being wise enough to prevent a politically powerful military-industrial complex

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I disagree, we don't have to sacrifice social benefits and public service to divert all the money to the defense. We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!

Neo-liberals are using the current situation as a new justification for the same shitty policies they are pushing for 3 decades. No change in strategy, just a new excuse.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No disagreement here, though I'd say the image is probably not meant to be taken literally. After all, if it's originally about the US, it doesn't seem to factor in how much more funding actually goes to healthcare over the military. Basically, thinking of this idea:

We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!

In practice, I think there will always be disagreements on where government spending can be best used, which is an argument that exists and will continue to exist regardless of how much extra revenue a country is able to obtain via changes in tax policy.

Increase taxes on the rich and get more money on principle, because the rich should be paying their fair share regardless, but someone will always make the point that the extra revenue could still be better used by social programs over defense.

It's hard to put into numbers exactly how expensive it is for a government to prevent an existential crisis like the EU is currently seeing, but at this point they have a lot of catch-up to do after decades of assuming their American "allies" would continue to have their backs when needed.