Piefed: @RmDebArc_5@piefed.zip
Let's agree to disagree. We clearly have very different ideas on human nature and I don't think either of us is an adequately educated physiological professional to hold a sensicle disscusion on the topic
10 million reasons for one person to kill another maybe, but 10 million reasons for hundreds of thousands of people to fight each other with billions of dollars of weapons that aren't created by states? I don't think so, but if you know one please tell me. If you're asking if I think there wouldn't be any violence at all in communist or similar society, then no I don't, but I think none at this scale
Never claimed they don't. The Russian propaganda commonly demonizes and dehumanizes Ukrainian(-soldier)s. They also like to pretend that they are actually doing this for the Ukrainian people (like the US). Do you think that Russian soldiers commit war crimes because they are inherently evil?
But why are they and their friends being attacked? Are those attacking them doing it because they just don't like them or because they are being told to by a state?
I think people wouldn't fight over countries if there weren't any states
Bad phrasing on my part. Russia obviously started this war, however it can only come to this because Ukraine and Russia exist as separate antagonistic nations and not because the people living in these regions hate each other so much that they have to go to war with each other. Russia shouldn't impose a future on the Ukrainian people and they should be supported in defending their ability to do so, however the Ukrainian government shouldn't be equated with the future Ukrainians want, it's still a (partially) corrupt, capitalist government.
I don't want this to devolve into a long discussion about democracy in Ukraine, but even though Ukrainian soldiers might be defending their homes, Ukraine as a nation is defending it's political system. If Ukraine surrendered immediately some people would still have been killed, some houses destroyed and some private property taken over by Russian oligarchs, but Putin wouldn't have taken every single home of Ukrainian citizens. The Russian soldiers attacking the Ukrainian homes aren't doing this because they want the houses but because they are forced, or at least brainwashed to do so because the Russian state wants control of Ukraine.
The main support should be of the Ukrainian and Russian people suffering from war, secondary that of Ukraine as a state as it's current political system is better for it's people than Russia's.
Edit: Ukrainian soldiers aren't actually actually able to attack the people that want Ukraine to be invaded (Putin), the treaties they signed with the western nations to get support forbids them from attacking targets on Russian territory, meaning they have to defend them against their invaders meatshields not against the invaders
I'd agree that the current political system of Ukraine is better for the workers there, however the is a conflict caused by the existence of capitalist nations. The soldiers dying wouldn't fight if they weren't forced to by their nations. Ukraine should be supported, but only in the sense of supporting a capitalist to get rid of the aristocracy
Ich hatte da mal diese Grafik zu gespeichert, ist aber zur frühen Weimarer Republik (Wobei sich da nicht so viel geändert haben dürfte)
It's not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow, he is cheating
Now he is eternally known because of a complaint tablet complaining that he was refused the option to buy copper
Two? Don't forget Kaffeine!
In my experience Ubo lite works a bit better, but has some problems when combined with a dns. It’s free, so you can just try it
Heroic Games Launcher is indirectly supported by GOG, meaning Heroic gets money for every GOG game you buy from inside their launcher (or by using their affiliate link). The offline installers of course work without any launcher on all operating systems they support. It’s also a great launcher, better than the official ones it replaces in my experience.
After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply ... as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).
That is the main divergence between anarchists and communists. There is a good quote that captures the problem quite well (translated from German):
You say that the state is a tool that can be wrested from the capitalists, but if, just suppose, you want to be a small-time artist, what good does it do you to wrest the anvil from the blacksmith? You can't juggle with anvils. The only thing you can do with an anvil is be a blacksmith. Remember: it's not just the worker who sharpens the tool, the tool also sharpens the worker. The state may be a tool, but it's not a Swiss Army knife, not a Leatherman, not a universal tool. And anyone who knows the stories—I deliberately use the plural here—will, given the problems of revolutionary states with the state, be unable to resist the suspicion that by attempting to take over power, one has already engaged so deeply with the logic of hierarchy that, if successful, one will almost inevitably imitate it rather than deconstruct it.
One idea of George Orwell about socialist revolutions he expressed when discussing animal farm:
I meant the moral to be that revolutions only effect a radical improvement when the masses are alert and know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as the latter have done their job
As soon as the revolutionaries have gotten rid of the capitalists they are a obstacle in the way of control by the workers as they have their own ideas on shaping a socialist society that they will try to push on the people.
Bundesjustizministerin Stefanie Hubig wertete die Festnahme als "sehr beeindruckenden Ermittlungserfolg". Einer der "mutmaßlichen Drahtzieher" der Sabotage sei festgenommen worden. Die SPD-Politikerin mahnte, die Sprengung der Nord-Stream-Pipelines müsse aufgeklärt werden, auch strafrechtlich
The idea is that the only reason why a state needs to exist is to enforce the classes, for example in feudalism the state is required to keep the nobility above the bourgeois. So if there are no separate classes a state won’t form as there is no reason too. Under communism no classes would form as the society is based on the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, meaning no one can be above or below anyone else as long as the society stays true to this principle.
Their are however a lot communists, at least in the 19/20 century that believe communism to be the original form of society (See Friedrich Engels footnotes in the communist manifesto), which would mean states have already formed under communism in the past. This isn’t that discussed as most communists are mainly in a never ending discussion how to achieve communism the “right way”. The main argument to my knowledge is that the means of production created under capitalism makes a communist society rich enough that it prevents people abstaining from the above principle.
We do agree that one shouldn't kill or rape people, however were we disagree is that you think that someone can't do something without finding it wrong if they had an objektive look at the facts. Do you think someone shooting a dog that is attack ing their child is a evil person? Do you think the majority of people couldn't be convinced that a certain group of people is subhuman, more similar to an animal perhaps, not be treated as a human? Do you not think that the majority of couldn't be made believe that these subhumans are attacking your country men, practically your family?
To name a more harmless example: most people will continue to buy products even they know they are partially being manufactured by slaves, even if they know that the production conditions of these products cause many deaths, even though this isn't a life or death situation for them.
Your idealism is honorable, however I think you expect to much from humanity