Coal mining enthusiast
America when the most milquetoast social democrat gets elected in a local election:
socialist candidate
looks inside
another socdem
Think the billionaire is safe, even more so considering the proposed pro-business policies by the candidate
Critical support to imperialist conflict
UHMMM AKSHUALLY (🤓) a single man cannot own all of earth, given how liberalism is heavily propagated and maintained by concepts such as nationalism and by extension xenophobia, racism, bigotry - all that fun stuff.
If a single man or an entity tried to create some pan-cosmopolitan world where every piece of land is under a single world-wide country, you bet your ass there's gonna be countless of reactionary national liberation movements to proclaim sovereignty.
Yes, nothing gets me going like innocent proletarian blood spilled in bourgeois conflicts like these
Calling it right now: it's a nothingburger as nothing ever happens
I agree that the state isn't the perfect solution, I'm not some dogmatic statist and who knows - maybe dutch leftcom councillism can work really well.
Historical examples of communist revolutions who wielded the state were awful, I agree. However, using USSR in particular as anti-"withering away of the state" argument just shows a lack of understanding of the concept and history.
The state isn't some metaphysical evil that's the "big bad", no - it's the oppressive class relations, and the state is merely an instrument to enforce such class relations. For the state to start withering away, one needs to do away with classes entirely, which means building up or repurposing productive forces for socialist mode of production, suppressing counter-revolutions (like in Russian Civil War) to keep the bourgeoisie away from returning to power, etc.
USSR had a peasant and industrial underdevelopment problem, where after the revolution there was no way to quickly "build up" these forces without taking multiple decades to a decent enough state where everyone's needs could be met via a planned economic model, which is a major task of a centralized state. Without this task being completed, capitalist commodity production model persists and state cannot wither away.
But of course, all I have is a wall of materialist analysis and not some moralistic anarchist slogans. I do like Anarchists don't get me wrong, but I wish there was more materialism incorporated into your analyses, like actual material reasons for why the state should be immediately abolished and actual alternatives to seizing control and making sure revolution succeeds over moralization and pointless prose.
Long walk through the park is quite nice - no cars, no pollution, just lots of birds chirping and strangers passing by
I'm a Marxist-Leninist which means I won't let the bourgeoisie exploit me but
the part of the proletariatred bourgeoisie can go right aheadFTFY, there's a massive difference between billionaires and people's billionaires (one of the words has people's in it)
It doesn't make a classless society, but it is necessary at least for a short while to establish the class rule and an actual path towards socialism and withering away of the state.
You can't have socialism without having all of people's needs met which requires repurposing the means of production, you can't have socialism without strong control during the post-revolutionary period given the counter-revolutionary tendencies of bourgeoisie/third-party opportunistic groups (most revolutions happen in pairs/chains, its the most volatile period) - that's the purpose of the period of transition.
Historically, countries such as USSR, China (though its a question if China's revolution was proletarian at all) and later didn't get past the transitionary period because of tens if not hundreds of millions of peasantoids and underdeveloped industry, having them to stay in this awkward period for a long time, which led to complete degeneration of ideology after opportunists took the reigns (like Stalin), who bastardized the meaning of Socialism and essentially caused the countries to become "red bourgeois".
Nope, it still is exploitative, given how surplus value implies workers not being paid full value for their labor. Even if workers were to seize the means of their production and got a say over their surplus value and where it gets repurposed, it'd still be exploitative due to how markers and competition works, and workers having to exploit themselves by "paying themselves" less, as that's the only area where you can reliably cut costs of production.
The only non-exploitative mode of production is socialist mode of production, where markets, private ownership, commodity production, wealth accumulation get all done away with for planned for-use production.
The problem with democracy as it is right now isn't that it's "the majority rule" (it isn't), but the fact that it's a tool of legitimizing class rule.
You get a bunch of pre-approved bourgeois candidates and parties who will either bring about further entrenchment into Capitalism (with people like Trump) or literally nothing (as seen with socdems around the world), and the parties that usually win are determined by the amount of control they have over media or "the loudest voice" aka money.
I really do hope more people (such as progressive leftists) can get around their preconceived notion that capitalism, commodity production and value-forms is the only way a society can organize productive forces. Many of the issues of today aren't the result of us having the "wrong kind of currency", but the fact that currency is necessary in the first place.
Showering only every 2 weeks during summer back when I was living in a peasantoid lodge where getting water and a bath/shower ready is a major pain in the ass.
I honestly don't mind if someone bases their beliefs based on flawed theory or books, as that does show some degree of engagement with actual texts and leaves the room open for recognizing why it might be flawed via future reading or discussion.
What I was mostly referring to were people who claim to be Marxists/Anarchists/whatever, proceed to not read any theory whatsoever and just roll with what they imagine the theory to be, usually based on some surface-level discourse floating online. Now that's where one can find true incoherent bangers
The right also has some prominent socio-economic writers such as Thomas Sowell and other writers adjacent to Austrian school thought, so it's not just media slop but also book slop.
It's just a bit unfortunate that the right doesn't read any theory, even ones that agree with their worldview, they just like talking about the authors because book = smart. Same with the left - there's lots of people who proclaim themselves to have some theoretically heavy position (e.g. communism or anarchism) then proceed to say the most stupid shit.
Same - and it's weird to see so many leftists immediately jump to unconditional support for Hamas, who are literally a reactionary, religious fundamentalist force and who have done horrible things towards Palestinian people.
Armed resistance to Israel does not negate its evils or its reactionary internal role.
Been in the same exact position :(
Hope you get to make up for the lost time
Yeah, this is one of the differences between anarchists and communists I doubt we'd ever find agreement on due to the nature of our views. Anarchists reject the notion of power altogether, while Marxists don't deny that power can entrench itself but attempts to explain why and under what historical and material conditions it can be overcome.
I have strong doubts that the people in charge will just give up power once it comes to that, and sadly most experiments with communism/socialism (in Eurasian at least) lead exactly to that.
To be clear, my intention isn't to defend the past socialist experiments as seen in my original comment, but using them as examples where people in charge refused to give up power misunderstands theory and history. The countries were never in position to "give up power", as they didn't ever reach a point where state became unnecessary, and there are reasons for that.
If you look at a country like post-revolution USSR, the country was agrarian with vast peasant majority. The productive forces were far from developed to properly transition into socialist mode of production and meet everyone's needs, which is one of the purposes of the centralized state, and this is something that would have taken a really long time given their productive capacity. Lenin and Bolsheviks did try to go for an international revolution angle in hopes they would escape this predicament, but they failed, leaving USSR isolated, forcing it to adopt capitalist markets and then quickly degenerating due to opportunism and the 'bad actors' the system inevitably creates over time as leadership changes.
Marxists such as myself would argue that USSR was doomed from the start due to their material conditions at the time unless they could have found success internationally. This is something that Anarchism wouldn't resolve - decentralization in an undeveloped, isolated and hostile environment would weaken defense, cripple the development of productive forces and very likely would have lead to an accelerated collapse.
Also apologies - I can't help but write unreadable walls of text.
Fitgirl is a repacker, not a cracker so this really depends what kind of a release is it, so you'd have to test by yourself.
It should work when it comes to launching the game, I've done it before in the past. But in theory, it's unlikely to work with achievements given how cracks tend to overwrite the steam api dll files and hooks, likely disabling achievements in the process as part of the crack.
Something you could try is to copy the steam dll files like steam_api64.dll from the original copy on steam to the cracked one and see if that does the trick.