Communist @ Communist @lemmy.ml

I'm an anarchocommunist, all states are evil.

---

Read more

Posts

8

Comments

335

Joined

6 yr. ago

This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn't even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.

A socialist system would mean that the worker is getting the full value of their labor... that includes your imaginary CEO, because that person is acting as a worker in much of your examples.

Once you recognize that you're arbitrarily assigning this person as a non-worker, you realize the problem with your gotcha...

You're basically saying "what if the ceo works really hard, then should he still get nothing?" the thing we're trying to abolish is the people who DON'T work, the CEO's who sit on their asses and collect would be the ones losing out in this system, same with landlords. The people actually working the land should own it. "passive" income is what socialists seek to abolish, because we actually value labor.

Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?

Nobody gives a fuck about your coat, do you honestly think that's the problem marxists have with private property? that someone might... rent out their coat? that's not the kind of thing we're trying to solve here, it's also something literally nobody does in the real world.

If you worked in a coat factory, and you make 100 coats a day, how much should you be paid for that? I believe profit is the stolen value of labor, so, the worker should make the value of 100 coats if they make 100 coats, that's the injustice we're trying to solve.

I own someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?

I'd say that's personal, if you're paying them to clean your coat, i'd say they have a coat cleaning business and the coat cloaners should own that business... which it sounds like in this example they already do, so, nothing needs to change.

Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?

Whether you're one of the workers or not changes. If it's a coat factory, you just own the factory, and make money off the stolen labor value, while contributing nothing. In your examples, you actually are contributing, which makes you a worker, and someone who should get the full value of your labor.

Y'know how totalitarian regimes are incentivized to be shitholes because of the keys to power problem?

https://invidious.asir.dev/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

at the very least, that goes away. But there's many more other things.

Yes, they have a tiny, insignificant amount.

An entire country has to have workplace democracy for the country to be socialist.

This is kinda like saying "doesn't any country with a slice of bread have food"

No problem, feel free to PM or message on matrix if you want any elaboration or have any questions!

Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.

When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn't have the right to own a toothbrush.

Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.

Are you being outrageous and arguing in bad faith on purpose?

I genuinely can't tell, in the event that you're not, nobody has ever suggested that janitors should be allowed to do the duties of brain surgeons. Furthermore, even if a single absolutely insane janitor decided he should be allowed to do the duties of a brain surgeon... nobody else would agree with them, because we live in a society with vaguely reasonable humans... and that janitor would likely be democratically FIRED for suggesting something so outrageous, or put in a mental institution.

Or are you worried about the janitor uprising in which janitors decide they can do all jobs known to man? Perhaps nothing can stop the janitor uprising, and we are all doomed.

Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that's asking a lot.

And that's not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.

For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own... but that's not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you'll note, that would be insane.

Okay, first, to lay some groundwork, there have been many modes of production throughout history

first, there was hunter/gatherer societies, then feudalism, then capitalism

Then we have theories as to what could come next, according to the marxist viewpoint, the next thing will be socialism, and then after that, communism.

So, communism is a post-socialist ideology, the only requirement for it to be socialism is that instead of a bourgeois class and a worker class, they will become unified (doesn't matter how for the purposes of explaining this, but usually through violent revolution)

So, a socialist place would have the workers self-manage, people who work in a place would also have democratic control over that place in some way.

After that happens, for various reasons outside of the scope of an eli5, communism comes, communism is a post-socialist society in which the workers own the means of production (hence the socialist prerequisite), currency has been abolished, the state has been abolished (but not government, these are two distinct entities in socialist thought), and there are no class divisions whatsoever.

Part of the problems with discussions about these topics is that communist philosophers of old used terms in very different ways than the colloquial ways we use them today. I can expand upon this if you have any followup questions!

That's state capitalism, and has nothing to do with socialism.

The workers control the means of production under socialism, not the government, this makes it in no way socialist by any commonly used definition of socialism by philosophers.

It's quite simple, right now businesses are structured in a totalitarian manner, socialism seeks to overthrow that totalitarian regime within your workplace, there's a number of ways to do this, nobody is suggesting the janitor should decide how a surgeon does his job, we just want to eliminate the useless position of CEO, and replace it with democratic systems managed by the people who work the jobs.

An easy to understand version of this would be if every company was transformed into a worker co-op, but that of course is only one of many models for socialism.

It is important to note that the government is not the worker, and therefore government control over the means of production DOES NOT COUNT.

In what way? I have yet to hear of a single socialist policy from cuba.

Do note: socialism is worker ownership over the means of production.

There are no countries with socialist policies.

Can you name a country that has workplace democracy? No? Then there isn't a socialist country out there.

Would I move to the social democracies of the world? I love norway and whatnot politically (as much as a communist can love the state of any country)... but I love having warm air and nature I can enjoy without a coat much more.

https://www.deepmind.com/blog/competitive-programming-with-alphacode

People overestimate how much it matters that ai "doesn't have the capacity to understand it's output"

Even if it doesn't, is that a massive problem to overcome? There's studies showing that if you have an ai list the potential problems with an output and then apply them to its own output it performs significantly better. Perhaps we're just a recursive algorithm away from that.

Uh... okay. There's a reason nobody who knows what they're talking about agrees with you, you're a very confident person who knows very little.

The protocols were fundamentally broken, that's the problem.

They destroyed security, they made multiple displays with mixed refreshrates and DPI's impossible, and many other fundamental issues.

Wayland needed that core functionality from the start.

No it didn't.

They chose not to include it, it was so short sighted.

They chose to make it an add-on to the protocol, this harms literally nothing except your feelings.

That’s why waypipe was created, to cover the huge gap they created.

...Yes, people made waypipe because waypipe didn't exist yet, now it exists, and it works fine.

and by the time someone glued that hack onto the side of wayland, it was too late

Too late for... your feelings?

It was already hated for neglecting the primary use of X windows

Nobody but you thinks that's the primary use of X windows.

That hate doesn’t go away unless they internalize the functionality into wayland itself, and take significant steps toward re-implementing all the features of X they ignored and turn it into a real X12.

...Are you not aware of what the wayland devs have been doing? they add features and implement them, they didn't do it all instantly from the start because that's literally impossible. It now has all the missing features.

Think Firefox extension or plug-in. Not properly included in the original base product, but added on by others. That will never be as elegant and pure as a fully integrated built in solution. Waypipe only exists because wayland was purposefully made incomplete.

This is nonsense, give me an actual example of how waypipe is worse, network transparency was sacrificed to work on more important features, and made it easy to extend the protocol to support it later. There's no downsides to this.

That will never be as elegant and pure as a fully integrated built in solution.

It already is.

You live in imagination land.

Nobody devs x11 because they all hate it, and you think you know better than EVERYBODY who has actually touched the code.

Wayland is currently fine, why not take your own advice and make it work better rather than improve something that is so fundamentally broken that literally nobody who has tried thinks it's even possible to fix.

You know significantly less than the x11 devs, yet you confidently assert that you have a better solution. Do you honestly think nobody tried to work on x11? Everybody did, and they all gave up, because it's an unworkable mess.

It's not kludge, and that's how it should've been implemented.

It isn't a shortcoming of Wayland that the core protocol is small, that's a benefit.

Can you actually say what's wrong with waypipe?