Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)FR
Posts
8
Comments
1,134
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Capital has a lot of power in China to the point where some have argued it is a State Capitalist system. At the very least there is a political tension between nationalist, Maoists, and capitalists within the Chinese government and Communist Party there.

    Does the average Chinese system actually feel and justifiably so, that they voice can be heard and direct the government or are they more likely to believe that speaking up will result in worse conditions for themselves and those around them?

  • I have heard, from leftist, that Russian leadership has a higher tolerance for casualties on their side because THEY see the forced conscripts from easter Europe as disposalable. I have not seen/heard a NATO leader suggesting that they are.

  • To be more accurate when talking online its better to distinguish between who is intended to be in charge (capitalism vs socialism) and what political systems are in place to implement it.

    China for example has some state capitalist characteristics meaning the state is ran in part and for the owners of capital. This is where some of their strongest economic intervention its policies stem from.

    Another example would be community cooperatives operating outside of the state. They clearly are not "capitalistic" by their nature but also are not a form of central planning.

    Another weird breakdown of these dichotomyies are inside of a megacorps operations, which while the corp is clearly owned by, and operated by the owners of capital (as virtual representation of shares) internally it is ran as centrally planned entity with no free market between departments (though some entities do expirment with heavily regulated market like Amazon does).

    Tldr

    Its a complicated subject, but boiling everything down to a false dichotomy based on 50 years of evidence does it a huge disservice. A better one to separate the intended stakeholders and what is the intended ways allowed for conflict resolution and coordination.

    A socialist business (exanple worker owned cooperatives) A capitalistic business (publically traded companies)

    Of course most modern organizations have multiple interest groups so you can have a state that has both capitalist favored laws, and working class and small business owner and NGO and etc etc

  • So if someone wanted to use this for work they would have to have an issue, find an answer, contact a person, and hope they can use the thing they just found to their problem?

    Like, who wants that?

    Heck I don't want every person on here who found something I said useful to be hounding me about using my code either.

  • I've been on an immutable distro and declaritive distro kick lately.

    So the bluefin project, which has so much sugar it a damn cake (in a good way, lots of stuff to get you to a usable running state for a lot of Dev environment and gaming).

    I'm digging into SUSE microos more now, mostly to play with elemental (I really want a featureful CI/CD env for my desktop, so containers to full VM and isos is neat to me).

    Nix has been super, super useful for packages that I want between OSs, but the alure of getting better configuration with them on full nixos is slowly drawing me in.

    Guix on the other hand is my current ideal, I am just super impressed with their full source bootstrapping and really love a lot of the philosophy of the project, but they don't get as much love from the professional crowd (nonacademic, non amateur).