axont [she/her, comrade/them]

Not only am I against AI, I fully endorse doing a real life Butlerian Jihad

Every person who says this will simply describe capitalism with more welfare

Invincible. It’s pretty good, but really violent

I know this is just a forum and the libs are always confused by nuance, but exploitation does occur in socialist countries, just in a vastly different character and at a much smaller scale. Cuba for instance does have private land owners who employee workers, and China of course has various large corporations.

However these are symptoms of the positions the nations find themselves within. Socialist nations tend to find themselves in the middle of capitalist encirclement. Until the last capitalist is extinguished, class based exploitation will continue to exist.

I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn’t endorse violence, but he didn’t condemn it either. He typically didn’t come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You’ve probably heard his 1967 statement “a riot is the language of the unheard.”

When is violence permissable or moral then? Absolutely never? You have to imagine the types of situations people in the world face. I know a person from Gaza who was nearly finished with his university studies, now he lives in a tent with his mother and his little sister is dead. When I’m able to talk with him, he expresses almost nothing but violence and hatred against the Israeli state and the IDF.

Are you saying my friend Ali is in a bubble he should get out of? Or are you simply talking about your own experiences? Because even if so, you should at least feel some inclination of rage towards the people who did this to my friend.

If you just want to limit it to Haiti, Cuba, and the USSR, then yes each of those revolutions led to a vastly more humane society than the previous one. It also depends on who you’re asking. Tsar Nicholas II certainly didn’t see the Soviet Union as an improvement. Cuban plantation owners with dozens of slaves didn’t see socialism as an improvement. There are winners and losers in history, the losing side usually isn’t going to be pleased.

And who loses in a revolution? In a successful socialist revolution it’s the capitalist class, colonizers, slavers, the previous bureaucracy, regional landlords. The USSR went from a backwater literal peasant kingdom to a space faring modern country within a single generation, despite a famine and despite the brutal loss of life in WW2. It’s very easy to say the country that sends women to school to become nuclear engineers is not as brutally oppressive as the country with a monarch that forcefully sends women to become nuns. How do you determine oppression? Go look at things like literacy, child mortality, education, home ownership, access to clean water, and what kind of occupations women have. By those metrics, socialist revolutions typically and vastly reduce oppression.

I don’t know why you think we’re proposing a society without violence. We’re proposing a society where the working class wields the violence against the capitalist class until the capitalist class ceases to exist. We don’t like when violence happens to us and people in the same position as us. And if gaining more control over our own lives involves violence against the capitalist class, then that’s what it takes.

I genuinely couldn’t give a shit about a capitalist’s supposed civil rights, and I take John Brown’s advice for how to treat racists.

I make one “sort of” exception for Czechoslovakia. I regard it as the only time a country became socialist by voting on it, but they had to do a coup with the implicit threat of violence to enforce the new government. The communists won a plurality in 1946 and had a coalition government. Fearing that they’d lose power, they began stacking the cops and courts with ideological communists. This fear turned out to be true after the liberal parties kept doing sneaky tactics to undermine the socialists. So in 1948 the communists had a coup to consolidate power and ally with the USSR.

And I know this wasn’t “bloodless” or “civil” since this all happened in the shadow of WW2.

I really respect the area of Kerala and its commitment to their public. Very robust educational system, healthcare, and a focus on access to clean water. That’s just from stuff I’ve seen and read though, I’ve never been to India, I’m American.

I hope the best for India’s future, but it seems worrying from what I hear. I would hope for greater collaboration with China and an easing of tensions with Pakistan. India is a massively diverse place though, with multiple languages and even multiple writing scripts, so sometimes it’s amazing it’s a functional country at all.

Most of what I hear though is about India dominated by very right wing movements, but there’s a strong history of Indian working class movements as well. I’ll try to be optimistic about the future. Also as an American I am fully aware of my country’s horrifying exploitation of the Indian people. The Union Carbide disaster is still the worst industrial accident in history and its impact should never be forgotten

i’m tankie and gay and covered in feces (some of which is my own)

Oh, thanks for replying in good faith. A lot of people gave you hostility because you did say something that seems a little misinformed. And people get ruffled by seeing that kinda thing so often. But good on you for taking the time to read stuff.

I’d really recommend reading this: The Principles of Communism by Engels.

It’s very clearly written, short, and explains what exactly communist ideology is and who it represents.

In very brief: Communists believe there are two classes, workers and business owners. This is always a hostile relationship that can’t be mended, since the two want different things. So we propose the working class should abolish the business owning class.

Liberals do not believe this relationship is hostile, or they don’t believe it exists. Or they believe it can be mended through the use of state intervention. That’s one of the primary differences here.

Yeah there’s no reconciliation between communist and liberal ideology. They propose fundamentally different frameworks for how the world operates. Liberals place emphasis on individual actions, intention, sentiment, or how changing people’s minds is the engine of history.

Communists with a material outlook propose the primacy of material distribution and class. Liberals don’t believe class exists, or that it doesn’t operate as a coherent political interest group.

lmao did someone really report me over getting their precious little white feelings hurt?

Liberal means someone who’s either misinformed about their own interests, or someone who willingly aligns with capitalist interests.

Liberal isn’t some badge of honor. It’s the default ideology in every western nation.

Authoritarian is usually code for when white people don’t rule a country

It’s more the case that in human interactions with the elements, most of them exhibit a metallic phase because we’re exposed to the elements on Earth. Out in space elements do weird things. Gaseous clouds of gold, solid metal nitrogen. A lot of elements in the universe are in plasma phase, which isnt common at all on Earth.

Metals are metal on earth because their electronegativity gives them metallic bonds in our atmosphere.

Metals have what’re called delocalized electrons, where electrons just kind of wander around a metallic bond between atoms. Metallic bonds involve a very low level of attraction between the nucleus and its electron cloud. Turns out most elements have this, so they do metallic bonding.

It’s only when atoms start to get a little wobbly do they exhibit enough electronegativity to perform ionic or covalent bonding, where the molecules donate electrons. Electronegativity increases on the right side of the periodic table when electron valency starts getting lower. And that’s the non-metal side.

So the answer is basically that you need more of an electrical charge to exhibit the things we’ve classified as non-metals. Metals are more chill and generally less reactive.

I should also mention that non-metals have a liquid/solid metallic phase at certain temperatures and pressures. I remember a Chinese study a few years ago claiming to have made metallic nitrogen.

The film’s problem was casting Brad Pitt as Durden and changing the ending so that he’s successful. The movie made him attractice and charismatic. The book makes it clear the narrator is completely unhinged and fixated on his hatred of women and femininity.

The book is very clearly a story about straight men not being ok. “straight guys would rather punch each other naked Ina basement instead of go to therapy.” The movie doesn’t translate that well, so it reads more like a criticism of 90s work culture. Which is fair, but it often misses what Palahniuk intended.

To also be fair though Palahniuk seems to like the movie, but really despises young straight men admiring Durden as some antihero. He elaborates that feeling in the comic sequels.

I’d really suggest fiddling around in VCV rack before committing yourself to building anything for real. It’s free too. Individual modules cost upwards of $300 at minimum and you need at least 10 of them to do the crazy generative stuff people are into.