Ah yes, my grandparents, the landlords. Wait hol’ up, they were working people, not landlords. GDR fucked them regardless.
“bUt tHAT wASn’T rEaL ComMunIsM” If neither the USSR nor China could achieve true Communism, then maybe it isn’t so much a realistic goal as a utopian ideal, a convenient justification for all kinds of crimes against humanity that occur in its pursuit.
It wasnt the GDR, it was the totality of global Capital conspiring to defeat the biggest threat to their power structure. What did the GDR do specifically that ‘fucked’ your grandparents?
It’s weird, we tried having a small group of people control the flow of capital and it was unpopular each time. Let’s try it again but call it something different or say it was something else when we tried it before.
The thing is, both USSR/China and USA don’t fit the ideals of Communism. While in USA suffers from the gap between rich and poor, USSR/China suffered from the difference between the people and the government. Just because you get rid of economical suppression doesn’t mean you can’t have political suppression. Sure these countries had economical problems but a lot of their problems could have been avoided if the government would have actually worked for the people and not for themselves.
it WAS real communism and ur grandparents probably deserved it. absolute worst case senario no system is perfect and good people still get fucked over sometimes for no good reason, difference is under capitalism it is constant under socialism it is rare.
As I understand it, “real communism” is supposed to be some kind of stateless society. As the GDR was, well, a state, it clearly did not achieve that. Nor would it ever have been likely to, as actually doing what was ideologically promised would have required those with power within that system to relinquish that power, which is incredibly rare as it conflicts with human nature.
Communism is not anarchic. Stateless with respect to Communism refers to instruments of government by which one class suppresses another. Communism was always meant to have a world republic.
i wonder what planet u came from; clearly u arent human cuz any human would understand the context here. actually u are human (probably) and u are just making a meaningless semantics argument in bad faith.
when left leaning libs defend their ideals from right leaning libs by saying “it wasnt real communism” like in this case. they mean that the thing being talked about did not adhere to communist ideals.
when u say that “it wasnt real communism” u mean that there is a distinction between communism and socialism or lower stage communism as marx called it.
the gdr was a socialist country led by communist with the goal of establishing communism when they original lib said it wasnt real communism what he mean was that “the gdr was not a socialist country and it wasnt led by communist”, then when i said it was real communism i meant to re state the fact that the gdr was a socialist country led by communist. so it is self evident that ur argument is irrelevant no one was actually talking about where the gdr was a stateless, money less, classless society, we were talking about whether the leadership of the gdr truly adhered to communist principles.
as to why ur argument looks to be in bad faith u would have to live under a fucking rock not understand this context or far more likely u are arguing in bad faith.
I think you have an unrealistic estimation of how much most people understand the topic of communism, if you think not labelling different types of communism as the same ideology is living under a rock. More than half the country doesn’t even realize that socialism and communism aren’t complete synonyms, and a good fraction think paradoxically that center right liberalism is somehow communist.
Real Communism, along Marxist lines, has a government. Marxism isn’t anarchic, the “stateless” part is specifically referring to instruments of the government by which one class oppresses another. Marxism has always been about achieving a global Communist republic.
Take it from a self-identified pinko commie and someone born in one of those regimes, it was not real communism. It was authoritarianism with a strong (but at times selectively applied) social safety net. To say that their grandparents deserved it when you know nothing about them is fucking absurd. You’re not helping your point or cause. You’re just being a child.
first anyone who would call themselves a pinko isnt a communist, ur probably a rad lib. second do u truly think that some lib the grandchild of gusanos can even be convinced by a random person on the internet to be a communist im not helping my cause sure, this is just for fun but if i had wrote some essay pointing out why the gdr was a real socialist country led by real communist which really adhered to communist ideals and said that its unfortunate what happened to his gusanos but that bad shit still happens everywhere i wouldnt be helping anything either.
I mean, it wasn’t, at least not according to the actual people who ran those governments. The USSR and the CCP were/are revolutionary governments, real communism happens when/if the revolutionary governments succeeds and transitions the means of control back to the proletariat.
and ur grandparents probably deserved it.
Really working hard to build those bridges of mutual respect and cooperation I see. This is one of the key reasons the USSR imploded in the first place.
The expansion of Soviet influence happened under the influence of Russian chauvinism, a major contradiction with the more successful maoist ideology today. Instead of allowing communism to be shaped by individual ethnicities or nations they did their best to russify or simply purge the base of power in the country, bolshevists or not.
Stalin and Beria did a whole bunch of purging of leftist to secure their control over the party. If you actually think everyone the Soviets killed deserved it, please go read about the Makhnovist, the Mensheviks, the Georgian bolshevist, hell go read what the Soviets did to the original leftist leader in North Korea.
difference is under capitalism it is constant under socialism it is rare.
Unfortunately that’s just not true. Revolutions are highly hierarchical due to their inherent need to react to militant reactionaries. As they begin to solidify their revolution and take over the responsibilities of the state, this hierarchy gets transferred from the the state.
Authoritarian governments are highly efficient, but are extremely hard to get away from once established. Often times the militant leader of the revolution is not the guy you want to be in complete control of the state after establishing a revolutionary government.
Mao was decent enough to accept this after the failure of the cultural revolution, Stalin on the other hand…
saying that lower stage communism as marx called it or socialism as we call it today wasnt real communism is meaningless, and at best petty. the argument was never a semantics one about the specifics of what communism is and where the lines between socialism and communism are, what was said when they said it wasnt real communism was that it wasnt led by communist and that it did not adhere to communist ideals and goals which it did. u would have to be some kind of alien lizard to not understand the context here which is why i know u are arguing in bad faith.
also some idiot lib going around saying that the gdr wasnt real communism because their ancestors had a bad experience with that system (or more likely they were landlords or capitalist and go what they deserved) isnt gonna change their mind cuz some random person on the internet told them otherwise nor do i care to make that argument.
saying that lower stage communism as marx called it or socialism as we call it today wasnt real communism is meaningless, and at best petty.
The problem is that the Soviet Union couldn’t even be correctly defined in Marxist terms to be socialist. Socialism according to Marx was a lower form of communism, one described as a transition from democratic capitalism to communism. The Soviets did not transition from a democratic state to communism, there were no valid democratic election from 38’-89’.
what was said when they said it wasnt real communism was that it wasnt led by communist and that it did not adhere to communist ideals and goals which it did.
I mean I still think there’s room for debate depending on who you’re talking about. I tend to think that the most simple definitional test whether or not you are adhering to communist ideology is to examine how the means of production is being managed.
Has the state expanded the means of control over the production to the workers in an equitable manor? Is the equity created by the workers being shared to the entire population of workers? By what means do workers negotiate their control over the means of production?
My arguments against Soviet communism is that workers had no meaningful control over the means of production. Groups of workers had no real access to influence the government such as voting as Marx described. The equity created by the workers was not shared equitably throughout the Union, with non ethnic Russians generally acting as a resource to be extracted from.
u would have to be some kind of alien lizard to not understand the context here which is why i know u are arguing in bad faith.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that when Marx was dreaming of a communist nation, he was not thinking it was going to start in Russia. It was an absolute shock when the 1rst country to commit to communism was autocratic Russia instead of Democratic Germany. Meaning a lot of Marxist writing isn’t really applicable to the Soviet State, Marx didn’t think about revolution occuring in a authoritarian state.
also some idiot lib going around saying that the gdr wasnt real communism because their ancestors had a bad experience with that system (or more likely they were landlords or capitalist and go what they deserved)
Or, they were one of the tens of thousands of leftist that were purged by Beria or Stalin. Pretending that the Soviets only killed landlords is not only academically dishonest, it’s harmful to future leftist endeavors. Self criticism is essential to eliminating internal contradictions from arising within the state.
It’ll be different this time guys, no really, just one more time guys, we’ll get it right, it wasn’t even a good try, let us go again, this time for real, no way it’ll be anything other than a utopia guys, the people will have the power, guys.
Lol it sounds like someone trying to defend capitalism. “No, it’s totally fine, we just didn’t implement it right. There are certain laws and regulations that can fix it, we swear!”
Yet for some reason any flaw with a communist country is endemic to communism itself, instead of the implementation, contexts of their outside conditions, or foreign influence, or general state of economic development.
Communism isn’t a series of sacrifices for an eventual greater good, Socialism is definitely better than what preceeded Socialism in Russia and China. The idea of True Communism can only be achieved globally, sure, and in the far future, sure, but Communism is about building towards that through gradual improvements.
You’re implying that any progress forward is useless if it doesn’t immediately achieve a far future society, it’s devoid of logic.
No, I just have very different ideas what progress is.
Progress in my eyes is made when a society becomes more democratic, and when we solve conflicts without bloodshed.
In that sense, sure, the GDR was a step in the right direction, but nazi germany didn’t exactly set the bar very high.
The idea of socialism is nice, but you hardly have any progress if the system (be it built on free markets or planned economies) doesn’t work to improve ordinary citizens’ lives, but only to keep the powerful in power.
Personaly, I don’t care much about free markets or planned economies. I think the best approach, as so often, is a kind of blend, a social market economy that allows independent companies in a framework that protects workers, consumers and the environment.
Thing is, the specifics of the economic system aren’t important. What matters is that the people are the ones who decide them.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing a utopian society, but ultimatly you have no control over what happens in the far future (neither should you, future societies need to be ruled by future people).
The only thing you can control is the present and the near future, so what really matters aren’t the ends you strive for, but the means you employ while doing so.
I think this is looking at it backwards. I think we shouldn’t view failure as a bad thing. Failure is learning. It’s part of growing. You fail at something, you’ve learned something (well, hopefully). Often you learn more by failing than by succeeding.
Like coaching my kid’s soccer team today: I want them to fail sometimes. I have a player doing well with his right foot and scores a couple of goals, I switch him to the other side and tell him to use his left foot “But I’m not good at it!” good. “I’m not good at goalie.” Excellent, here’s the goalie jersey and go get in there. That’s the point, I’m trying to make them better soccer players. If we just played into their strengths all the time, it would limit how much of a better player they can become.
At work, as a programmer, I try something out. It doesn’t work out because there was some unforeseen condition that causes my initial pattern to fail? No big deal, just redo the pattern from scratch (if, of course, there is the time for that) or rethink the pattern. And I’ve seen how often that solves some other problem, or makes another thing more efficient, or makes future development more easy.
So who cares if your coffee shop failed, or you’re a “failed writer” (I’ve never heard that before), if we don’t treat failure as a bad thing, then people will be more likely to accept that and learn from it.
I think you’re right about embracing failure, but I think this is different: is your kid’s soccer team a failure if they don’t play forever? Or is it a success that they play some games, maybe win once or twice, even just learn and have fun?
Some things in life we seem to label failures if they stop after a season, as if long-term stability were the only true goal.
The thing with football is that there is a specific goal (pun very much intended). It’s ok to have a mindset that you’re going to play in a way that makes it unlikely (in the beginning) you’ll achieve that goal (eg play left footed), but if that player never improved, would you still think it’s ‘working’)?
I worked in an industry for many years that was obsessed with goal-setting, and that mindset never appealed to me. I eventually found a book called Goal Free Living by Stephen M. Shapiro. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me, and the phrase “Carry a compass not a map” stayed with me until today. I’ve done several different things since then but I’ll never be famous for any of them as I still keep changing direction.
I made my own post about problems I have with what was posted, but an angle that I would love if more people adopted would be to stop viewing failure as inherently negative and useless in nearly all cases.
Failure can teach you a lot if you are capable of reflection and analysis, and failure happens to everyone, all the time, and is totally normal.
don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to minimize that side, I just think there’s a fair argument to be made that direct control of peoples eyeballs are potentially, comparatively, much more powerful.
I use msys2 (www.msys2.org), it uses pacman as its package manager and has a lot of developer packages (so i can compile fortran and integrating it to python). It comes with bash and a terminal, but I used windows terminal and made a profile for using msys2’s bash, the same on vscode. Then I installed neofetch (packages.msys2.org/base/neofetch) and just saw this hahaha.
Someone else already said WSL, but before WSL there was Cygwin, and before Cygwin it was probably the DOS era tbh, but you could definitely get pdksh as a DOS executable back then. (I was never quite brave enough to make pdksh the SHELL in CONFIG.SYS, but I could have.)
As for Windows' WM being Explorer, yeah, that's basically been the case since Windows 95. The desktop itself is a special instance of a folder and the taskbar, at least up to Windows 7 (I've been out of touch since then) was a heavily modified partially-floating menu bar.
Prior to that, Windows 3.x had something called Program Manager which Windows 8 kind of, sort of, went back to (but not really) and everyone hated it. The original Program Manager would have been better, honestly.
Makes me wonder if the setting is still there in modern Windows to change the WM to something else. It used to be in WIN.INI, so it's probably a registry key now. No doubt deep instability will result if it's set to anything other than explorer.exe because of the deep integration that explorer.exe has with literally everything, so probably not worth trying. Also, if you start Explorer when it isn't the WM, it'll probably try to do WM things anyway and break whatever else is running.
As far as switching out Explorer goes, it’s not actually the window manager, that’s Aero since Vista - but it is the shell on desktop editions of Windows… But not all editions. Some server editions (“core”) and some specialized other ones have the shell set to literally just a cmd window. There’s no taskbar, no Start, no desktop icons, etc. There’s a cmd window that if closed triggers a reboot. Of course other things can be started from it.
I’m not sure if there’s a setting that could be changed to make a desktop edition behave like that or vice versa.
DOS was ok, but when I found Linux with its cli multiprocessing, &, bg, fg, jobs, and alt-f#, my head exploded and I thought about all the time I could have saved in my years of using DOS with its single process terminal interface.
There’s no “computer icon”. Dragging the System disk to trash ejects it on a classic Mac. If you burrow down into System, you can try deleting system files… which are locked and can’t be deleted.
i mean, this story sounds like it’s from pre-release testing, or maybe a trade show demo showing a pre-release build. it not working this way in the release version just makes sense, and doesn’t mean this is a fake story.
No such demo happened. They unveiled the 128K with that System 1.0 on stage at a special event. The Lisa has a different UI, but also can’t do what’s described.
The story seems to be referencing the first time apple had regular people try it which may have been in a focus group or at some kind of publicity event. If this did happen I’m sure they made safeguards against it before selling it
I have to agree. The Macintosh 128k didn’t even have an internal HDD. Everything was run on 3.5" floppies. Heck they may have invented the 3.5" floppy, idk. As you said, dragging the system dick icon to the trash on a 128k was literally the easiest way to eject the disk.
My father still owns one, that may actually work. He also got 2 extra external floppy drives for the thing. He also has an Apple ]|[
Unless this story is from preproduction software and they got rid of the computer icon. Or maybe that detail was misremembered and it was actually a disc icon.
I hadn’t heard the Mac story before. I wonder if it’s legit, as I don’t think the Mac, or the Lisa before it, ever had the equivalent of a My Computer icon. Disks appear directly on the desktop; dragging a disk to the trash can ejects it if its removable media, and the only type of disk the original Mac had was a 400KB single-sided 3.5” floppy drive.
Let’s say it takes half a second to copy/paste and submit the message. That’s 50 seconds saved, round it to one minute. You’re only doing it once, so let’s cross over to yearly. According to the Munroe Automation Scale, you can spend up to 5 minutes on it.
I’d say that code took about 1 minute to write. Maybe 2.
Caveat: This is all written assuming the message is being written on a computer with a real keyboard. But if we’re assuming this is written on a phone, then my analysis doesn’t apply, but then again, writing a java program to execute in your messaging app is also a terrible idea. Which means we’re suspending disbelief, so I choose to believe that a computer keyboard and shortcuts are available.
Type the phrase once. Select all. copy, paste, paste (the first paste replaces what you already have highlighted, the second paste adds a second copy). Now you have 2. Control + A, Control + C, Control + V… Now you have 4.
It will take you only 7 cycles of this get 128*, you only need to copy/paste it one by one if you want to send each message separately. and even then, it’s would purely be copy the original, then paste, send, paste, send, paste send, paste, send.
Assuming you can hold down control and just hit ACVV 7 times, that’s 28 keystrokes. I’d bet I can get that done in 5 seconds or less (i tried it, it’s less than that), so now I only save 5 seconds. Which means I only get 25 seconds to write the script. Which he chose to write in java for some reason?
[print(“I’m sorry”) for x in range(0, 100)] is actually a script I could write in less than 25 seconds.
*And I disagree with the “reason 4” given. She didn’t say “exactly 100 times” she said “100 times before I forgive you” and to me, “before” implies >= and not ==. So if you drop it in 128 times, that exceeds the criteria. No one has ever rescinded forgiveness for receiving extra apologies.
Ngl, I’ve never had issues with either for ram. my experience with Firefox is mostly the sameas chrome with ram usage. The main reason Im on Firefox is cause it’s been a whole lot more stable for me than chrome.
If the majority of ram isn’t being utilized you either have a problem or have entirely to much ram. I’m not saying programs can’t be memory hogs, but they should utilize what resources are there to perform better. It would be like turning on a flash light, using all of the power and then covering half the bulb while trying to cross a field in the dark. The CPU and GPU use more electricity when running at higher percentages, ram is negligible for the most part.
i always hear this but it’s obviously not true lol, if i ever see my ram reach max usage the computer shits itself and i’ll likely have to restart it because most things become utterly frozen
full RAM utilization is patently not something you want.
In my personal experience chrome rarely gives up ram and will starve programs that need it more. While that works if you’re only running chrome, if you’re using it in the background while doing something else then you can find important programs running out of memory. The result is that you have to close and reopen chrome.
Granted, I haven’t used chrome or a chromium-based browser in a very long time, so chrome might have gotten better at giving up memory when other programs need it. However, if I’m playing a game, doing rendering, working in a game engine, etc, then usually I have a browser open in the background with YouTube or Twitch and/or programming/visual references. I don’t need or want a browser consuming as much memory as it can, just enough for it to play videos, show me reference images or tell me how to program something. It absolutely doesn’t need +8gb of ram to do that (I saw it hit 16gb once, which was when I switched to Firefox; 16gb is ridiculous no matter how many tabs you have open).
I switched from Chrome to Firefox on my Mac desktop and the memory usage was cut in half at least. I only use it on my Linux notebook, so I have no idea about the memory usage difference there, but there was an unquestionable difference on the Mac. It has 16 gb of ram and is from 7 years ago, so it was before the M-chips and their ram hunger and still gave me memory warnings.
Now I never have memory issues on it. All it took was switching to Firefox.
So it definitely makes a difference on some systems.
lemmy.ml
Top