Cowbee @ Cowbee @lemm.ee

This town, in fact, has more than enough room for the two of us

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

2 yr. ago

Noted!

Yea, so you don't actually understand Marx, and I'm correct. Glad you could prove me right!

It's a for-profit, Capitalist business that runs it, ergo its Capitalist. The user base is largely liberal, which is still pro-Capitalism. You tend to see more Anarchists and Communists on Lemmy by proportion.

What would a human who has hopes, dreams, and aspirations do to rock the boat in Communism? Why do you think Communism is based on requiring everyone not have hopes, dreams, and aspirations?

You don't actually know, your feelings are just hurt and so you lash out.

You don't actually have any points, though. Your whole thing is that "good thing bad because it hurts my feelings," lmao.

Lmao, none of what you just said actually meant anything, beyond you hating humanity and deepthroating Capitalist boot.

Decentralization appeals to leftists, as that's the principle of the ideology, away from bourgeois interests.

I haven't seen evidence of state-sponsored propaganda, though there are people that simp far too hard for China and the CPC on Lemmy though.

A number of reasons. Just like you claim a Communist party almost destroyed your country, Capitalist parties destroy and are destroying many countries as well. The existence of bad Communist parties does not itself mean Communism is structurally a bad thing, as pursuit of a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society is a noble goal for humanity.

I think it's fair to say that decentralization is a good check against Authoritarianism, and as such, this should be extended to the workplace, not just government.

As far as why Lemmy leans left, the founder is a Communist, and principles of decentralization and federation tend to appeal far more to leftists, while Capitalist-inclined individuals have Reddit.

You're starting to get it. You should read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. He describes the very mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie use the media to control the people into doing their bidding.

Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn't have dictators every time a revolution occurs?

I mean absolutely no offense by this, but that's a load of Utopian bullshit.

People use "-isms" not to divide into tribalism, but to describe methods and structures. If you can identify problems with modern, Capitalist society, calling it "Capitalism" is not meant to divide anyone. Similarly, the various leftist strategies, such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndiclaism, and so forth, are all different proposed ways of tackling the same problems.

How do you propose people move towards a solution if nobody knows what the fuck everyone else is doing?

Pretty sure that's everyone's ideal, across all forms of leftism, except perhaps Le Guin's Anarchist societies she writes about.

Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.

Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There's also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.

The nations you think of as "Communist" are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.

Yes, so you're proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.

What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.

My phone's autocorrect, apparently.

...do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.

The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.

That's incorrect.

Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.

Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR's Marxism-Leninism or China's Dengism and Maoism.

Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn't change.

Depends entirely on what you play. For most people, a standard gaming PC is going to be your best bet, especially if you play FPS titles, but for a select group of people a Steam Deck makes a ton of sense.

If you play mainly older titles, are on the go frequently, and enjoy a console experience, you can even hook your Deck up to a TV with a docking station, or to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse. It's super convenient, and is like a gaming laptop/console hybrid, almost like a switch with an entire capable Linux install for productivity.

For someone in need of something like that, I think a Deck might make more sense!

Absolutely. Free flow of information without pay wall allows humanity to collectively build upon itself.

Fair, lol