Certified classical fascist and neo-nazi
Proud zionist, loves war and capital
Also hates stalkers
And replace them with what? What's the enemy here exactly?
Yeah, it's your personal responsibility to vote for the "good" candidate, with voting for the "bad" candidate being an individual's moral and mental failure as opposed to it being caused by shifting material conditions, crises or simply just failure of liberal political side to garner enough support or them targeting only the affluent middle-class intelligentsia.
Why don't everyone just vote for the good guys, are they stupid?
To be fair, you don't need to update your system to install a package, all you need to do is run the update command just to sync up the database, then cancel out when prompted.
I've gone multiple weeks/months without updating and everything was fine.
EU countries bought a ton of weapons already, it'd be a waste not to use them.
Also just the rule of capital loving war - we're currently in a profit rate crisis, and war is really good to prop up the economy.
Also, having millions of working class soldiers and conscripts get put in the meaningless meat grinder is a sport for many nation-states.
Sorry but this is TRUE
Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets
Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don't get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.
Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into "whatever USSR was at the time", which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.
Though, this is something we'll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao
Oh hi Cowbee
Yes, there were many issues with USSR, but inevitable opportunism that is bred by capitalist mode of production and the way of life it produces is, in my opinion, one of the biggest dangers for DOTP's, and it does encapsulate a lot of other issues USSR had such as its underdevelopment or failure at achieving (meaningful) internationalism. It obviously doesn't encapsulate everything, but I wrote the comment at work and I'm not really used to writing unreadable blocks of text from a phone.
Even though you're getting shit on with downvotes, you are half right. Communism hasn't been tried before, but it's also very difficult to achieve due to opportunism (or what you call power hunger).
For communism to be achieved, the working class has to take down the dominance, or dictatorship of the capitalist class (also called dictatorship of the proletariat), then productive forces have to be reorganized to produce to satisfy everyone's needs rather than for profit, and then abolish commodity production entirely and replace it with planned economy, distributing goods via labor vouchers or "according to their need" in later stages.
So far we got only to dictatorship of the proletariat (which manifests as state capitalism, not communism as many steps are missing) in USSR, and the Bolsheviks under Lenin were genuinely disciplined, but the country wasn't industrialized, with hundreds of millions of peasants. Can't provide for everyone when theres no factories to build enough stuff in!
However, capitalism and state capitalism breeds opportunism, meaning that if you don't replace it quickly then even under proletariat class control opportunism will rear it's ugly head, as seen in USSR. Of course there's also other factors, but for communism to have a chance to work, it has to happen in an already developed country with international spread so capitalism over and done with quickly.
According to whom?
According to Marx, Engels, Lenin and any other respectable communist.
Capitalism is a historical progression rather than something you adopt willy nilly, and it has expanded productive forces significantly allowing us to produce stuff far more efficiently in far higher quality and complexity. With feudalism, it's mode of production was far more individualized, with peasants essentially producing for their and their family's subsistence only, and artisans in guilds would only work in small groups, limiting to what they can produce.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Keyword is in theory - in practice, everything else in the system goes against that, leads to overproduction and having us proletariat work for much higher hours than is socially necessary, it concentrates wealth to private owners giving them immense political power. That's what communists are trying to do - progress forward so we produce not for profit, but for use based on need which would solve these issues.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it, owning a small amount of land that they worked for themselves. Proletariat are urbanized, work in factories they don't own and produce for thousands of people. A more apt comparison in work hours would be proletariat vs guild apprentices - their exploitation and work hours were essentially the same and this system was precursor to capitalist wage labor.
Activism
Most serious anti-ICE protest
Once we get rid of all billionaires, society will finally start to heal and all of the classes will finally be able to work together as single unified national people ♥️
Liberals (and most leftists tbh) are masters at taking comments that talk about something they haven't considered or comments that correct notions they misunderstood, giving it 0 thought and lashing out at the commenter, making it their fault somehow.
I got straight up banned from one community for the crime of pointing out what class war actually meant, but it was treated like I just summoned Hitler or something
Yeah, solarpunk predates the ad, that is very true. It's still funny that so much of the modern solarpunk ad is based on the advert
If that's the conclusion you're taking from me saying "maybe adopting your political views and ideology from a couple of drawings and a commercial is silly", then you're absolutely correct. After all, there's either solarpunk or doomerism - nothing in between, no alternatives, just those two options.
My god, I doubt that even the artists who draw solarpunk take the movement seriously enough to go for such bad faith leaps of logic as you.
Nothing wrong with enjoying art and media that envisions a future, but when you look at the art and go "hmm i'm gonna make this my ideology, my political identity" with no (or very little) research/analysis on what we currently have, what needs changing, how this change would be achieved etc, then don't be surprised when some people don't take it seriously.
Imagine having an ideology thats based on a yoghurt commercial
Even those 2 parts are usually not enough.
If you look at 2 red years in Italy or the worker uprisings in Germany shortly before Nazis got in, there was plenty of revolutionary class consciousness with factories being taken over and constant gunfights, but there was no one to lead them making them an easy target for the military.
Because money is an "universal equivalent" commodity that can be exchanged for essentially anything, ranging from food, housing and other essentials to personal political power. If you're a capitalist and can get this powerful commodity passively without doing any labor of your own, it wouldn't make sense not to go for more.
That, and also just how capitalism works in general - capital tends to accumulate in the hands of the few given how easy it is, often even without doing anything, to monopolize industries, drive smaller competitors out of business or even absorb them.
Add in the very basics too like how the main driving force behind companies is profit accumulation, and you start noticing that it's not necessarily a moral failure, but a system being one of capital accumulation - it's the game that everyone is heavily encouraged and told to play.