If it was a worker-owned co-op they’d be the same… but it never is.

TBH do you actually think that there’s some chance that nobody is testing these releases and this is happening to a massive number of people?

I’ve installed linux countless times on a SHITLOAD of computers and never faced any of these problems, realistically, you’re very unlucky, and these sorts of things happen with windows all the time too.

I’m not saying your issues don’t matter, but unless you have statistics that back you up, you can’t say “it just works” to either OS.

I’ve had more of an “It just works” experience with linux literally hundreds of times.

I… just explained that I was not in fact called on a falsehood, you just misunderstood my writing.

I even explained how it was obviously true, you’re just ignoring it. How could that be an implementation of communism if it includes a state??

I understand now why your co-moderator is unwilling to moderate with you and just gave me sympathy, you can’t argue, or possibly, can only argue in bad faith.

Anybody else reading this will come to the conclusion that you’re being intentionally obtuse.

That is not a change, you misinterpreted me.

“This is merely a prediction of what an advanced country that might implement communism sometime in the future, as in, is not currency communist, but might be someday looks like”

In other words, marx is not describing a communist country, he’s describing the prerequisites he believes there are for a communist country.

is a better version of that sentence.

You’ll notice one of them even says “in the hands of the state” but it is well known that there is no state in communism… the state must wither away, and communism is the end point, therefore there is no state in communism.

They die from the billions he’s keeping. If I donated 20$ it would impact me more than bill gates will be impacted through this act of generosity.

Hundreds of thousands will die because of his greed, him making up for some of it doesn’t make him worthy of praise, yes obviously it’s a good thing that fewer people will suffer, but we’re discussing whether he did a good thing. My argument is that he did less than the bare minimum because he is keeping billions

your standards are so incredibly low for humanity that this is good enough to praise, my standards are not so low, I expect him to sacrifice to help others before I think he deserves praise.

He could spend billions on megayachts, private islands, hookers, and blow, or hoard it like a dragon as other billionaires do. Instead he’s making a direct material difference in millions of lives around the world.

He can still do that, he still will have billions. He will likely not reduce the frequency of these purchases at all.

What he’s doing saves millions of people.

Yeah, and it’s the bare minimum. consider the hundreds of thousands that could be saved if he went down to being a millionare… He sacrificed literally nothing to save millions of people. It’s outrageous that all billionaires aren’t doing this, but it isn’t particularly noble.

I know a communist might think a million lives is just a statistic, but those are individual people. Bill Gates the billionaire is doing more to make the world a tangibly better place than all the conplainers in this thread.

of course he is, but he’s sacrificing literally nothing to do it. So, so what? It just makes it even more disgusting that he built up that amount of wealth in the first place. Nobody should be that wealthy and this should not be applauded, it should be less than even the bare minimum. If he downsizes his mansion or otherwise loses something then it’s a minor act of charity. Until his life is in someway effected this is basically nothing. If you donate a 20 dollar bill it will likely impact your life more than this will impact his.

…you do realize that, for example, if you had 100 billion dollars, you already have every asset you ever wanted, and then you lost 99 billion, and still had a billion dollars, your life wouldn’t be impacted at all, right?

99 percent of his wealth being lost does what to him exactly? I literally can’t think of one thing he loses with this.

i think you could benefit from reading yourself, my point was about what he loses by donating the wealth, if you think money has inherent value I feel very bad for you, honestly.

I just need steam\proton\wine to support native wayland and then I’ll remove xwayland from my system, can’t wait

i’m on hyprland though

New hyprland patch can do pretty much all the xdotool stuff since they added a send key to window thing

what is bill gates sacrificing to do this? As far as I’m aware absolutely nothing at all.

i think in order for this to be praised, in order for it to be good or generous there needs to be any amount of sacrifice. Is he downsizing his mansion for this? Does even one thing about his life change?

this is just a way of buying good pr.

I guess there’s no rule against trolling so you’re fine. But I thought you were trolling both me and the other guy talking to you. I genuinely believed this. There’d be no point reporting if I didn’t.

I am aware of the End of History and it’s more likely that society will shift towards libertarianism instead of socialism, considering how popular a brand is at being the US president and how everything regarding communism is already dead, or just capitalism painted red like what China does (see this community’s icon as an example). I’d like to see socialism, something like UBI, but we’re in a corporate world showing no signs of stopping, where brands are so prevalent that people flock to defend them without a second thought.

You’re also using it wrong. Currency and the state have been a part of human society throughout history, from slavery to feudalism to capitalism. Implying that the End of History will somehow remove this need for currency and the state is a fairy tale and a misuse of The End of History.

I am not using it wrong… the end of history is about marx defining history as a set of class struggles. I see now that you’re deep in not listening to what actual marxist scholars say so i’ll have to source everything, I don’t do this because it takes a long-ass time and is boring, but here goes:

" The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. "

This is where he sets up an idea based on the hegelian dialectic that there’s a natural progression of history through base and superstructure. The point being that his definition of history is one of class struggle. Logically it follows that the endpoint of history is one without class struggle, no?

Implying that the End of History will somehow remove this need for currency and the state is a fairy tale and a misuse of The End of History.

Yeah so this is a complex one but whether or not its a fairytale is irrelevant, that’s the marxist belief, and the point of this discussion is to clarify what you believe marxists believe, not whether or not it’s true.

Marx clearly said communism would be “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” How does that work if currency is involved?

You’d do well to read this particular source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

the gist of it if you’re not going to read it, is that currency would be replaced by a system of labor vouchers, where you are paid based on the amount of work you do directly instead of just currency, this means it doesn’t circulate and allow you to accumulate wealth. The reason this has to happen for it to be the end of history is that part of the abolishment of class struggle is the abolishment of generational wealth, etc. I hope that makes sense to you now.

Yes, he did.

Where? The screenshot you gave is from the communist manifesto where he’s detailing the possible pre-conditions for communism, he at no point says “this is what communism will be like:”. This is merely a prediction of what an advanced country that might implement communism looks like.

Really? I can’t think of any.

https://anarwiki.org/List_of_Anarchist_Societies

Also the ones i listed in the text, the zapatistas and the revolutionary catalonians, it’s literally right after I said that sentence.

I don’t care about the US, it’s a clown country and always has been.

You’re completely missing the point of my argument, my argument is that based on your analysis the american revolution where kings were finally overthrown would be impossible simply because it hadn’t happened before, things that haven’t happened before aren’t impossible.

dismantle since you haven’t actually said anything of your own views.

I’m not giving my own views, i’m attempting to explain to you what marxists believe, i’m not even a marxist!

Tell me also what you think of Stalin, Mao, North Korea and tankie communities. No vague handwaving ‘methods,’ or ‘reasons.’ Those aren’t answers. You need to be exact.

I think all authoritarianism is evil, I don’t believe stalin or mao were genuine communists, i think they were powerhungry dictators who used communism as a propaganda tactic. Tankie communities are bad because they deny the very real evil things these people have done, some of the people in those communities are genuine communists who have just been mislead, however. Is that clear enough for you?

in short, stalin mao, north korea evil bad. tankie communities dumb.

Also, i want to make a note about something you said here:

“it’s more likely that society will shift towards libertarianism instead of socialism, considering how popular a brand is at being the US president and how everything regarding communism is already dead, or just capitalism painted red like what China does (see this community’s icon as an example).”

It’s not about the current zeitgeist, there’s an inevitable force causing class struggle to come to a close, you see, as these places have become more and more beorgeois, and as the proletariat has fewer and fewer resources, we get closer to a revolution, this is fundamental because eventually they will starve the masses, you’re noticing the same pattern marxists did and drawing that the conclusion is that it must go on forever, when in actuality, there has to be a breaking point. Automation alone is likely to be that breaking point, when most people can’t find work, they will have a choice:

Starve

revolt.

Which do you think they’ll pick?

Yeah, i’m very lazy about giving sources, it’s a lot of work and I already know the material and sorting through it is like solving a maze, it’s boring, takes forever, and is completely not rewarding, i think that’s the reason i’ve been accused of giving vague answers (although the link you gave said nothing about me giving vague answers, in that i was accused of trolling for asking for a source for something, i maintain i was not trolling), I don’t want to have to cite everything i say to have discussions I find interesting about communism.

Because I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith, and i didn’t realize you were a moderator.

There was no need because they used the word properly.

It’s nice you have a special, ever-changing definition of communism that conveniently excludes authoritarians whenever you want and which you’re unable to properly define aside from vague handwaves with ‘watch this video’ or ‘read this book’ – As if a youtube video is credible to the likes of scholars, or that you expect people to read a book that has a certain point of view that is at odds with others.

I defined it clearly, as all marxists do, as a classless, currencyless, stateless society in which the workers own the means of production at the “end of history” by the marxist materialist dialectic. I will not use any other definition because that’s the definition marx made…

impossible to implement exactly as it’s written.

Marx never gave a specific implementation or even wrote about how it would be implemented… he merely gave a critique of capital and explained some inevitabilities about future societies based on these observations.

Though, I would like to see you make these arguments against tankies instead of communities like this one.

I do. Furthermore I wasn’t even trying to argue with you, just inform you about communist belief. You were arguing against something no communist scholar would’ve said.

Unless you think that tankies are communist, in which case I’m concerned if you agree with them.

I think they are (sometimes) communist, but I disagree with their methods to such a degree that we are not similar at all. In the same way you don’t agree with hitler just because he was a capitalist.

Tell me also what you think of Stalin, Mao, North Korea, and how every country that has tried communism has ended up authoritarian.

Easy, I think they ended up authoritarian for a number of reasons, the first and foremost of which is that there is a great deal of power attempting to suppress communist thought, and a vanguard party was the easiest way to enact communist thought in the early history of communism, this combined with the fact that capitalists actively try to dismantle non-capitalist societies at every possible threat lead to a survival of the fittest scenario where authoritarian methods were the most survivable because ruthless authoritarianism is very good at surviving despite the world being against it.

I don’t want authoritarian communism, in my eyes the ends do not justify the means, I want something similar to the anarcho-syndicalists of revolutionary catalonia, or the zapatistas of mexico… which by the way are counter examples to the notion that all socialist projects end up authoritarian, they were both fundamentally democratic from the ground up to such an extent that everything was handled democratically, no politicians even in the case of the zapatistas.

It’s not at all impossible to implement communism without a dictatorship, anarchists have done it countless times and then been destroyed by large capitalist armies throughout history. The real question is can a communist or anarchist society survive being trampled by the bourgeois. I think it’s possible but the conditions must be right, and I think your stance would have said the american revolution would be impossible.

Also I just want to say I have no idea why you think revisionism is relevant here

All forms of authoritarianism are evil, but communist authoritarianism is an oxymoron.

self defense is a necessary evil, for example

No need.

Marxes fallibility has nothing to do with anything, we were discussing what communists and MARXISTS believe… are you actually suggesting that what marx said is irrelevant when trying to understand communist thought??

the argument is that it wasn’t communism because marx clearly and over the course of many books defined the term countless times as “the end of history” and a stateless classless currencyless society in which the workers own the means of production… my argument is based on a reading of marxist literature… your argument is based on what exactly?

how do you define communism?