Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
320
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don't think climate change is real, so now I think you're stupid and you think I'm stupid and it's he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl. The thing that fixes this is a definition of "stupid" that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

  • Doing so would be a valuable contribution to the discussion and morally good so I sure hope so

  • I think it does matter what you define as being stupid, yes. Let's say that I want to call being transgender, not having enough money to buy food, and being an immigrant all stupid. I should treat those things as malice because they're stupid, right?

  • Who decides what is stupid and what isn't? There better be a good, clear, obvious, and universal objective method of identifying stupidity if you're going to treat it as malicious.

  • Mastodon is also not backed by any major donor and also has a better UI??

    This comment kinda makes it clear that it's your service and you're plugging it though so I'm glad I could have that suspicion of mine confirmed

  • what does this have that Mastodon doesn't?

    and why is the very first thing I see on the starting page a slur?

    the privacy policy is a fucking nightmare

    and also you have literal nazis on your trending

    lmao this place sucks

  • based? yeah I hope so too

  • This is called "technocracy", and while it's cool on paper, it leads to a disconnect between the people in charge and the actual problems of the people.

  • looks like a small twister picking upon some dirt and a plastic garbage bag, or maybe a big piece of ash getting sucked into a column of smoke in a small fire

    Why does the "person" seem to kinda just materialize in the middle of the column half way thru the video?

  • I can respect that y'all kind of hate my kind here and I'm going to use this comment to share only the most unobjectionable works that even the most anticommunist liberal should find completely and utterly appealing

    Fully Automated Luxury Communism is a book about how we have all of the tools at our disposal right now to automate at least 50% of the work that we have to do to stay alive, and thus get rid of that work as a tool of coercion and exertion of power.

    How Capitalism Ends is about how the power got to the concentrations it has today, where we can expect it to go by extrapolating that tendency, why there was no other way it could have gone, and what we can do now to start building the next thing.

    These are two very good and easy starts to starting to think about this problem. I'm happy to field questions about the works or anything else related.

  • You might be right, but regardless of the origin, the belief was popularized in the West because of Christianity. Unless you're suggesting that Nietzsche is merely pointing out an intrinsic feature of all human morality, but I don't know his work well enough to decide either way on that.

  • I was born and raised atheist/agnostic, never set foot in a church before 18 besides weddings. Still am, never doubted it. Maybe I believe in like Spinoza's god or something but definitely no Abrahamic God.

    Something I've learned is that among many other things, a certain holy quality to persecution has definitely permeated the western consciousness and it 100% has me second guessing myself often. The christliness of being persecuted, made a martyr, and suffering for your cause carries a moral quality that I have absolutely not freed myself from, even though there's nothing automatically morally good or bad in suffering and being made a victim for fighting for a cause.

  • I acknowledge that this isn't a question towards me, but I'm gonna take a stab regardless, so compared with Lenin, Stalin:

    • didn't have the advantage of "noob gains", or the period where all of the low hanging fruit fixes to what was basically feudalism could be made
    • had to amass nearly the whole productive output of the union to defending against and defeating the Nazis, as well as drafting nearly every man in the country in a highly self-defensive war
    • had to start from rubble at the end of the war
    • was the target of much deeper and more frequent propaganda, as the USSR under Lenin was an alarming proletarian experiment to capital, but the USSR under Stalin was a global superpower that threatened hegemony on a daily basis
    • faced famines and sanctions of a much higher magnitude at much worse times than Lenin
    • and yes, fumbled a couple things very badly which lead to a non-negligible amount of death (although, and I recognize that this is impossible to prove, handled most things far better than any bourgeoise head of state handled their similar crises)

    He was decent. He isn't a god, he didn't do perfect, but when you count how shitty the hand he was dealt was and how much better things were going by the time he walked from the table, he did pretty damn decent.

  • That's still money. It's just pegged to something besides a bar of gold.

  • you are in over your head if you think replacing a currency with a different currency pegged to the value of labor is communist. Socialist, maybe, communist, not even a little.

    This document is very dated and fairly simplistic but it's a good 101 basis for what we believe. Just so we're speaking eye to eye, go read this (it's very short and light reading, don't worry), then come back, and use this definition of communism. It's the definition that communists actually use and it'll do you well to know your enemy before you pick fights with them.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm jk the Manifesto is more relevant here, a little less short and substantially more dense but if you're gonna argue with Marxists about Marxism you should probably read the 23 page pamphlet that Marx is actually famous for https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf

  • We didn't invade them because of mutually assured destruction. We did proxy war them, espionage them, propagandize them, sanction them, embargo them, engage in brinkmanship with them, send blank checks to their enemies, sabotage them, and more, and all of NATO was of a one track mind in doing so.

    Was the USSR so weak it was unable to be self-sufficient on the world stage? No, the USSR was so strong that starting from a mean 27 year life expectancy and zero productive infrastructure, it was able to survive this onslaught for nearly a century, and while doing so, put the first human in space, achieve world-class technological innovation, gender equality, literacy rates, and more.

    1. click into the source please (or at least read the URL), he tried to resign 4 separate times and every single time the motion was even entertained he was voted to stay unanimously, once even by Trotsky's delegation.
    2. if you want to turn this into "your sources are fabricated", well then, no YOU, and with that, we're done here. I've seen this play out too many times to bother with it again.
  • https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/

    VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

    STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!

    MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.