USrooster @theUSrooster

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans. Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable. Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné. Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut. À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol. Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée. Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit. Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie. Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags. Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle. Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère. Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision : "La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne) "La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek "Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

Julia ひ @lifeimitatlife

3 months ago

Depuis tout à l'heure je me renseigne sur les idées de Karl Marx sincèrement je n'arrive pas à comprendre comment on peut être pour le capitalisme et même plus généralement être de droite

353 415 6K 2.3M 368

Look to Europe America. This is our future if Democrats gain power again. We can still stop this thanks to President Trump.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek @EvaVlaar

3 months ago

Our government has turned on its own people in every possible way.

578 5K 17K 201K 392

Wow….

Sasha Issenberg @sissenberg

4 months ago

Does the @nytimes know what NATO stands for?

3K 5K 47K 8.1M 3K

Food for thought. Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface. The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities. Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed. In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines. In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive. A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent. By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right. In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.

🧵 THREAD: Democrats TEACH voter identification and election integrity ... just not in America The Democratic Party has an international arm called the National Democratic Institute (NDI). It's funded by $181M/year in US tax dollars. Its board includes Stacey Abrams, Donna Brazile, and Tom Daschle. But in regards to today's SAVE America Act debate... did you know that the NDI has taught and supervised election processes all over the world? For 40 years, NDI has told every developing country on earth that voter ID is essential for election integrity. They've recommended biometric systems... yes, that's right, NDI recommended biometric systems, which goes way beyond SAVE America Act! They praised fingerprint verification. Tracked ID card issuance rates. Meanwhile, Democrats call the SAVE Act "Jim Crow 2.0." Same party. Same people. Opposite positions. As always, patience as I pull together the thread 👇

It's not Islamophobic, it's lived experience

Christopher Hitchens: ”In 1786, when the United States was barely a country, it was having its sailors taken as slaves by the Barbary states, the states of the Ottoman Empire and North Africa. Tripoli, shores of Tripoli. Ships stopped, its crews carried off into slavery. We estimate 1.5 million European and American slaves taken between 1750 and 1815. Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said, why do you do this to us? The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world of any kind. We weren't in the crusades. We weren't at war with Spain. Why do you do this to our people and our ships? Why do you plunder and enslave our people? The ambassador said very plainly, Mr. Abdul Rahman said, because the Quran gives us permission to do so, because you are infidels, and that's our answer. Jefferson said, well, in that case, I will send a navy which will crush your state, which he did. Islamic fundamentalism is not created by American democracy. It's a lie to say so. It's a masochistic lie, and it excuses those who are the real criminals, and blames us for the attacks made upon us.”

This is genius A video was made in the style of Disney that explains Sharia Law This makes Islam and Sharia Law easy to understand for everyone of all ages

Dear Chuck Schumer, Hi. Black dude here. I can trace my family ancestry to slavery. I even know where they were slaves. My mom experienced Jim Crow. I think I’ve watched every episode of “Eyes On the Prize” when I was younger. With that said… Can you directly explain to me how the SAVE Act is “Jim Crow 2.0?” Literally every black person I know has ID. Literally every black person I know has a car or at least a ride. Literally every black person I know knows how to vote (well… except the ones with felonies… but they don’t count). With your advanced white liberal thinking, you must know more than me. Apparently, as I experience daily on this app, white liberals are experts on being black; even more so than actual black folks. Perhaps you could explain it like I’m five. I’d look it up on the internet, but Kathy Hochul has already told me I don’t know what a computer is and Joe Biden said I can’t navigate it, anyway. Looking forward to your answer. No hugs. Zeek

🚨You are in a PROPAGANDA WAR. Still don't believe me? Give me less than 10 minutes 👇

@royalserf Because you were a bitch

@Here_4_NBA @Walddo @5solas MG is correct

@Walddo @5solas Ecclesiastes 3:8, "A time for war, and a time for peace.

"Don Lemon don't come here!"

🚨 HOLY CRAP! Floridians STORMED the Indian River County Zoning Meeting to BLOCK the construction of a Muslim "EPIC City" and Dearborn-style community in Vero Beach It was filled to the BRIM: "Standing room ONLY." REPEL ISLAM, FLORIDA! Keep pushing back, this project must be defeated! 📽️ @TrustDML

Worshipping peacefully (January 20, 2026) - YouTube youtube.com/shorts/IIaIPX1…

🚨 BREAKING: American Veterans are now signing up to become ICE agents, including COMBAT Veterans - and liberals are angry about it MUSIC TO MY EARS! "Liberals, I need you to listen up. Going forward in 2026, it's not a good idea to continue this aggression during your protests." "I'm sitting here putting in an ICE application, right? And when I'm talking about it here, I've had hundreds of my brothers and sisters at arms, my fellow Veterans, say, no, I'm joining up too!" "I already signed up. I'll leave for training, whatever, whatever. A lot of Veterans are joining ICE right now." "Projections are saying like somewhere north of 100,000. And I'm willing to bet the vast majority of them are going to be Veterans, combat Veterans." "We're talking a class of American citizens, blue collar type, that are trained, that willingly signed up to shoot at and get shot back at." "Signs and screaming in cars. Oh no, don't do it. Don't do it. You need to understand something, liberal. We're talking about people who have been blown up and stood back up to return fire." "A lot of us veterans, we take our oath seriously to defend our country against enemies, both foreign and domestic." "I don't think it's going to be an intelligent idea going forward to present yourselves as enemies domestic." "Keep your goofy a** on the sidewalk, stay out folks' way." h/t @EstieMaddie

@GOP @SebGorka Not seen any one of them protect Christians. Here in this country l!?!?!? You will lose all of us at the rate it’s going

If I don’t see Don Lemon arrested for harassing a Christian church service with a pack of rioters… you lose my vote. Full stop.