Honestly, I’m not against ads, I understand that a site with free articles needs to pay the bills somehow. The reason I use ad block is that online ads have become so intrusive that it makes websites unusable, and the way they track you is way over the line. If ads didn’t completely destroy the experience of reading a website and were reasonable in the data they collected I probably wouldn’t bother with ad block.
When I just used a browser ad blocker I made a point to unblock sites that I wanted to support and didn’t use obnoxious ads. Unfortunately for them I now use a network ad blocker too and it’s more of a hassle. One of these days I might make a list of domains to unblock but at the moment I’m more concerned with figuring out how to block YouTube ads at the domain level.
Afaik, they are unblockable. They are served from the same domain as the video, so if you block them you can’t see the video either.
Instead of blocking it at the domain level, you can install adblockers on almost any platform. I recommend uBlock for Firefox and ReVanced for Android. ReVanced is also supposed to work on Android TVs, iirc.
Assuming you don’t mind microG, with revanced you can sign in and have access to more of the bells and whistles. Otherwise, newpipe is great, and it’s more than YouTube. It handles bandcamo and other services too
ReVanced is a modded YouTube (and others) app. IE normal YouTube but you fuck with it locally to skirt what got the original Vanced guys. Adblock, OLED black theme same old thing Vanced provided. I’ve used NewPipe very little but I’d summerise a comparison as ReVanced has better user experience (thanks to Google making the app) and you can sign in/get notifications ect
I said this on Reddit and they agreed that you don’t deserve to be alive if you’re not working, it’s really a disease of the mind to believe this shit.
I could see why tho. What happens today is not the same as this ideal probably. You could argue that if your a fit, 20s, healthy, etc. and you just sit home all day, your kinda a waste, but then again siting somewhere else 9-5 is also a waste so.
Eh, I can see why would someone think that. There are things that I disagree with more.
I mean it does make sense if you keep in mind that we traded having to hunt and forage for a system that let’s you buy these things indirectly with currency.
You just need to leave out the whole thing of empathy and morality and reduce the whole system to a exchange of goods and services for money.
It’s more like you haven’t earned the right for other people to do the work of keeping you alive.
Human life requires work to sustain. Someone has to do that work. The most fair system is one in which that responsibility falls on the person benefitting from it.
ie, to be alive, you must contribute work. Because your life requires work to maintain.
I’m so torn on this meme because on the one hand I have the same gut reaction of “yeah, but youll die if you don’t do jack shit in the woods, you kind of have to be useful to live”.
But then I think about our society … the billions of dollars going to rich people who do nothing, the millions of people who work in jobs that are useless, or the millions who work jobs that actively harm society, and in that context, the amount and type of work does seem like bullshit. It’s not like going into your marketing firm 5/7 days of your life means a farmer gets to work less. People like to comfort themselves with vain thoughts like ‘we all just gotta do our partfor the system to work’, but that’s objectively not true. Lots of parts of our system are objectively bullshit and are excised completely through new laws and legislation and society keeps working fine, in some cases much better.
There is a difference between believing everyone owes a debt to the society and civilization you participate in to support those who cannot support themselves, and not deserving to live if you didn’t fit into the rigid hierarchy structures we’ve built for work. But often these sentiments get mixed together.
I don’t think they do. In our society we don’t really let people die just because they don’t fit in. When there’s someone who can’t take care of their self, we take care of them.
Where are you talking about and comparing to what? Cause I see a lot of people dying in the streets because of mental illness or drug addiction when I take the subway to work. We don’t throw them away like ancient Sparta but we definitely don’t come close to providing the services they need to the things they need to begin to get off the street. Cause the solution now is put the homeless in prison and that’s going just fine right? …Right?
As a selfish conservative you should already know that they are the exact ones who want to steal every single security net from every citizen whilst simultaneously enabling corporations to destroy unions and create monopolies.
I mean c’mon, you have to know this. It’s the core tenet of the traitor supporting party. Thieving, stealing, cheating, and lying are all that the magat traitors have to offer.
I live in reality, and I myself have been given free resources when I’ve been unable to work.
In my country, I have never seen a hungry person who could not obtain food due to lack of fitting in or having money or any requirement other than “oh that person has a stomach and needs food, so let’s feed them”.
That is the reality I see all around me. If you want to call that a “fairy tale”, I challenge you to provide evidence of a person being treated in the way you’re describing. Anywhere other than say a concentration camp or japanese pow camp.
What part of our society is letting people die because they don’t fit in? This is a serious question, because everybody seems to believe what I’m saying is a fairy tale, and yet I see it happening all around me.
How, exactly, are you getting the impression out society is one that doesn’t value the life of people who don’t fit in?
This meme is mainly talking about workers who are worked to death to “earn a living”. Capitalists who leech off of workers do not deserve to be alive.
Of course, that’s not the case for those who are physically unable to work to the same extent as others. Basically, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
We have more than enough resources for everyone, so long as the working class can control the means of production instead of the capitalists who try to hoard all the wealth.
“Earning a living” doesn’t state that people should die if the choose to be a grifter or a thief or some other dishonest person that takes from others and doesn’t contribute to society. It just means those people didn’t earn their living.
In a functional society everyone should contribute to better the society. “Earning a living” is a statement of pride in contributing to society value equal to or greater than the value you get from it. If someone is making a living through dishonest means so isn’t earning a living, it can be something they should be ashamed of
Note that socialist societies have similar expressions like “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. The intent is the same, encourage people to contribute to society. What if I don’t contribute according to my ability and just want to take what I need? Does that statement imply I’ll be sent to a gulag if I don’t contribute according to my ability? OMG socialism says I don’t deserve to live!!!
I really LOVE not showing the flashy packaging, that shuts off much of the monkey brain. I’d love to read a study that went into what effect that has on smokers.
Probably zero effect. Smokers continue smoking regardless of everything thrown at them because it’s ridiculously addictive. But you’re right, it would be interesting to see the actual data.
Smoking rates in NZ have reduced markedly and this is one of the many actions we’ve taken as a nation to get the numbers down. I’d think it has an effect thou probably more on reducing uptake
I think it’s probably the rising cost and the increased outcast status of smokers that has had the biggest impact. That and vaping being an outstanding cessation method. It’s really inconvenient being a smoker now.
The ultimate goal is to prevent people from starting. Cessation is a secondary goal, and always has been. Because it’s much much easier to intercept an addiction before it starts.
That’s what this sort of display is trying to do. It’s not going to deter current smokers, because they already know what brand they like. But it will be very effective at stopping new people from starting.
My only worry would be accidentally fetishizing it. I can say I always wanted to go past the bead door in the movie rental place just to see what was on the other side
I dunno. How many people start smoking because they were in the shop and thought “go on then, I’ll try some”?
I’d wager most people start in school, taking it up from peer pressure courtesy of that six foot 14 year old with a tash who looks just old enough to buy them at the corner shop, and then keeping that habit up throughout their life.
Maybe it stops people relapsing, but for most smokers you could put them on the other end of a minefield with barbed wire and they’d still want them.
That said, the smokers at work have pretty much all swapped to vaping now, purely out of cost. £15 for a pack of fags is a big ask, when you can get a bunch of disposable dodgy vapes for much less.
In Europe packs are required to have medical photos of their long term effects on the front (black lungs, people hooked up to machines while getting cancer treatment looking like death, that sort of thing). I kinda like that it’s displayed prominently in that case. I have no clue if it works, but over all I think there are less smokers now in general, at least in my personal experience. So it might? Who knows…
Don’t assume it’s the same for everyone as it was for you. I would bet there is at least some noticeable percentage that quit because of this, or at least helped by this, but if that’s 4% or 25%, I haven’t the faintest.
Honestly, I’d love to see this be the case for all products. The packaging has no effect on the quality of the product. Give me a name, description, and what’s in it and let my logical brain only make the decision. I am pretty far away from advertising where possible, but you can’t get away from it while shopping, which is likely the place where it has the largest effect.
Looks like some weird artifact. The original author deleted all his original tweets back in October, so I can’t find the original; but he did retweet Stephen King’s quote tweet of someone else’s tweet of a screenshot of his original tweet (wow I hate that sentence) and that screenshot doesn’t have this artifact in it.
They match up so exactly that I’m pretty convinced this has to have originally been the same image, just mangled by some sort of an uploader or something.
what’s fortnite’s anticheat like? my understanding is that a lot of games that would normally have no problem running on some flavor of linux or another but their anticheat software requires some ridiculous level of privilege that linux won’t (and shouldn’t) give it
Fortnite uses Easy Anti Cheat, which is made by Epic (that is, Fortnite’s own developer). EAC works fine on Linux; it just needs the developer to enable it.
It could be that, or they just really know their community. If the cost of getting it working on steam deck and maintaining it is not substantially less than the income brought from the platform It doesn’t make any sense to utilize the platform.
Exactly, Sweeney isn’t a complicated man, he’s just a greedy one. If choice a is less profitable than choice b, he’ll pick choice b. In this case, it’s Linux support vs other dev efforts, and the other dev efforts are apparently more profitable than Linux support.
And that’s my favorite quality about him, and it makes it really easy to avoid his products. It’s why I mostly play indies and use lemmy, I’m fine with lower production value if the quality of the overall experience is better.
That’s a side effect, not the goal. The goal is to make a ton of money on microtransactions, that’s why they have a revenue sharing licensing model, not a per seat model. They don’t lose much by being friendly to smaller devs, because they’re banking on raking in profits from the few that go viral.
I argue that until the recent change, Unity was the best engine for indie devs. You pay per seat and that’s it, you keep the rest. And you don’t pay until you make more than $100k, just like Unreal (Unreal is 5% after your first $1M). So if you earn $2M, you’ll pay $50k to Epic or $2k/seat for Unity (assuming pro plan). If you expect to make >$1M, Unity will probably be cheaper for smaller studios. If you want support, Unreal charges $1500/seat/year for the Enterprise option, and you still need to pay for royalties.
So here’s how I’d decide which to use:
Godot - most indie games
Unity - indie games with high revenue expectation (if it takes off), and studios with infrequent releases (you only pay if you’re making >$100k)
Unreal - big 3D games with latest tech, or indie studios with lots of smaller games with lower average revenue targets
Most studios don’t need the features of Unreal, so it’s an odd choice for your random indie studio.
In many of those cases, they wouldn’t cross the threshold for income for either, so the choice of tool wouldn’t matter. So use whatever you’re familiar with.
But honestly, with Unity violating dev trust, I highly recommend indie devs use Godot. It’s plenty good for the scale of most indie games, and there’s no royalties or costs (though donations are recommended).
My understanding is that it uses EAC and Battleye, but in an “either/or” arrangement. That is, both are installed but which one is activated when you boot the game is essentially random (or driven by some logic that is not readily apparent).
Battleye also claims to have native Linux support.
But even if it didn’t, it would be trivial to have a Linux version which only used (the Linux version of) EAC. Presumably Epic have enough faith in their own anticheat product to rely on it for their flagship game for a small minority of users.
(All copy-pasted from what I’ve written in the linux_gaming subreddit)
This is the same guy who compared Linux to moving to Canada once, had moved away from PC gaming because of “rampant piracy” only to return back to it because he wanted that sweet, sweet pie of the market Valve had ripened, built the shittiest store imaginable, that was initially literally spyware and took 3 years to get a fucking shopping cart feature, did all these shitty exclusives to keep the said store afloat, instead of you know, trying to improve it? The same guy who allowed shitty creepto games into his store only when Steam had banned them (btw does anyone remember that Epic Shit Store was supposed to be a “highly curated store”)?
And this is the same company who specifically makes sure Fortnite won’t run on Linux because they literally use several anti cheat software, apart from the one they’re literally developing themselves, deliberately to NOT make Linux run it (such confidence on their software amirite :V)? The same company who has (hopefully had) a dumbass developer complaining about Steam Deck .
And there is also the matter of Rocket League, Artstation, Bandcamp, and so many other things.
Epic and Tim Sweeney are the most two-faced scumbags I’ve ever witnessed in my life, and it still fucking hurts me because I’ve loved the Unreal series so goddamn much, man.
In fact, I’m more angry at Heroic and Lutris and co. for allowing games to be installed from that store. Epic shouldn’t get this amount of work done for them for free.
To all the burn it down and rebuild leftists (by protesting and not voting for the lesser of 2 evils) tell me how well that went for the Communists in Germany and Italy the last time mask off fascism rose to power there…
Edit: Not one of these “Self-righteous leftists” have addressed my question about what happened to leftists in Germany or Italy when fascist took power there. Its almost like they dont give a shit about the Prolitariat and would rather engage in purity politics rather than support the working class or marginalized communities. Absolutely pathetic astroturfing, or simply a complete disregard for the Materical Conditions on the ground in America.
If you want to teach the Democrats a lesson, do it earlier. The presidential election isn’t the time nor place to play games - as we saw with Trump setting the country back years.
The amount of people I knew who were like, “There’s no way Hillary could lose so I don’t need to vote,” or, “Bernie got fucked so I’m not voting out of spite,” were too damn high
The “best” part was seeing how low the voter turnout was in our district that typically leans blue, well in 2016 the turnout was hella low and it went hella red for the first time in a long time
Looking at raw numbers the red was pretty consistent from election to election but that year so many people who would vote blue didn’t vote that it swung the election
Felt bad but now those people I know haven’t missed a single election
Not voting for the lesser of two evils is the most childish shit. People like to bring up that Geralt quote, as if the situation in that story wasn’t made a hell of a lot worse by his decision not to choose.
If you’re not gonna vote blue all the way down, then you need to put your money where your mouth is and start burning it down so you can rebuild it. Otherwise you aren’t protesting, you’re just being lazy.
And 45 being in power would have made it all better and would have supprorted Freeing Palestine. /s Give me a fuxking break. Implying that i support Genocide is ridiculous, I’ve attended 2 Free Palestine marches in D.C. so far, have written the president to voice my opposition to the funding of Israel, and contacted my Representative. What have you done besides engaging in whataboutism on the internet? Biden sucks, but implying that voting for him and/or supporting dems in the midterms is supporting Genocide is assinine especially when you factor the right wanting to commit Genocide on trans folk in the US. You are supporting Genocide by not voting for the lesser of 2 evils you self-righteous internet sjw. Touch grass and engage in Praxis if you actually care.
Furthermore you are a shite internet SJW you haven’t posted an ounce of OC. I’m an internet sjw myself, dont get me wrong, but at least I post OC. Have you ever had an original thought? Or do you just puppet what gets upvoted on Lemmygrad…
Anyone who supports Genocide Jim Crow Joe Biden is a genocide supporter. It’s that simple.
I’ve attended 2 Free Palestine marches in D.C. so far, have written the president to voice my opposition to the funding of Israel, and contacted my Representative.
And then supported him regardless. This is just performative bullshit for you to attempt to salve your conscience. You are complicit in genocide by directly supporting Joe Biden.
Biden sucks, but implying that voting for him and/or supporting dems in the midterms is supporting Genocide is assinine especially when you factor the right wanting to commit Genocide on trans folk in the US.
The right? Are you trying to claim that the Dems are not “the right”? So your concern is for a tiny fraction of a tiny percentage of the world’s population, rather than the millions who are murdered by America worldwide? At least you admit it. American lives are worth multiples of other humans, right? Scumbag.
Also relative to the Dems the Republicans are right, you absolute ham sandwich. I’ll vote for a Neoliberal all damn day to fight mask off fascism that the Republican party is championing.
No it isnt, allowing tge Republicans to win would quite literally stain my hands with the blood of my trans Comrades. Your whataboutisms are pathetic, glad you are privileged enough to not have to worry about mask off fascism taking control in America. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still reduces the amount of evil in the world.
Why are you appropriating left wing terms to try justify your genocide? How many of the tiny percentage of humanity is American? And what percentage of those are trans? And of those, what percentage are “comrades”, do they support genocide too?
You’re just making up excuses for your white supremacism.
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils still reduces the amount of evil in the world.
It literally doesn’t you ignorant Nazi removed. It just papers over the cracks.
The only moral choice you have is to stop supporting the USA.
lol, somehow he believes that if you had voted for Trump none of this would have happened and Trump who is suggesting we remove all Palestinians from the US would have handled this better.
And seemingly also believes that had you done nothing it would have been a more powerful statement. Right, because allowing Trump to win would have been a good “fuck you” to Biden without any real world consequences.
Unless these people are out there plotting the coup of the history of mankind and not just idly complaining on the internet, then they need to just stop.
Oh, then proceeds to come up with some “trans lives don’t matter when compared to _____” or “you care more about ____ than _____?” Again, quit it.
Ive attended multi protests/marches and have made a plethora of memes that spread class conciousness. However the onus isn’t on me to give my praxis bonafides when I’m not the one encouraging civicdisengagement. What praxis havd you practiced?
I’m literally advocating more political engagement, “you’ve got to vote to prevent fascism” is a lie, you’ve got to do a hell of a lot more than protesting and voting and making memes.
Underneath a meme I made while shitting, youre welcome. If you dont understand how building class conciousness isn’t synonymous with building power, all i can tell you is that you need to read more theory.
Never said it did, its encouraging political engagement, which you are actively discouraging by disparaging the Electoral system, which is a tool to stave off fascism long enough for class conciousness to build.
Electoral system, which is a tool to stave off fascism long enough for class conciousness to build.
It literally isn’t, and it has never worked as one. What historical examples are you basing this on? How many books have you actually read on the subject?
I would start with the “economy and class structure of german fascism”, “The capital order” goes into how neoliberalism is connected to fascisms modern resurgence.
I’ll see if my library has em, but i am very well aware of how Neoliberalism is connected to fascism from what I have read on marxists.org I just dont agree with abstaining/denegrating the electoral process to remain ideologically pure. Criticism is great, but discouraging voter turn out in leftist spaces does nothing but accelerate mask off fascism from returning to power ie. The 2016 election.
So I would love to know. Would voting for either no one or a third party be a big “fuck you joe!” with no real world consequences? Is that seriously your belief?
Voting for one of two given candidates is far from actually directly supporting someone. You do not know what they did before the generals. Who they supported in the primaries. Unless you are literally out there plotting the coup to outdo all the coups of mankind and not idly sitting complaining online, then you have zero room to attack someone for voting for the less of two evils.
Unless, of course, you believe Trump would have somehow done better or prevented this. The guy saying he would remove all the Palestinians from the US. The guy that the creators and backers of Project 2025 wants to be their guy
And quit it with the “a tiny percentage of people is better than _____”. For one, well over a million people is not just some group to throw to the side to support another group and you’re literally doing the same thing you’re accusing this person of doing. Second, if you think that trans people by themselves are the only target of all that nonsense, then you are seriously incorrect.
Your hands would be clean of blood and you can say you didn’t participate in the charade that led to the deaths of millions.
Voting for one of two given candidates is far from actually directly supporting someone.
It’s literally supporting one of them. That’s what it is. Participating in the American regime’s phony processes legitimises them.
Unless, of course, you believe Trump would have somehow done better or prevented this.
I don’t care. There’s no air between them. Biden took all of Trump’s policies and made them worse. You don’t care about the policies, just the personalities.
For one, well over a million people is not just some group to throw to the side to support another group
This is literally your logic, remember? The lesser of two evils?
Second, if you think that trans people by themselves are the only target of all that nonsense, then you are seriously incorrect.
Are the other targets Americans too? If so, fuck them, the vast majority of Americans support its continued existence.
Alright, continue believing this nonsense. Again, unless you are actively working on a massive coup to destroy this system, then all of your talk and nonsense is going to do nothing to help anyone.
There isn’t one major political group in the entire world that you standing up by doing nothing does anything about. Not one.
And again, you call for the attack of other people in order to save another, which is exactly what you accused him of.
All you’ve got are some shit excuses to support a genocidal regime that’s killed and displaced tens of millions around the world and continues to do so today.
Doing nothing as you call it is the only moral choice in the context of American “democracy”.
you call for the attack of other people in order to save another
That’s your shtick, not mine. I said to “do nothing” remember? Can’t even be consistent in a single comment.
No, you are suggesting that their support of one group is an attack on others. Your position is that is wrong.
You proceed to say “fuck em” about Americans who are under threat of attack. Which is a contradiction of your beliefs, at least if you take it at face value. You provide no other context and appear to be of the position that American suffering (individuals, not the regime. We can agree the regime needs to be destroyed) is of no consequence to you.
It’s a shame that both sides of us have to just jump to attacking each other instead of the much larger target that we BOTH agree needs to be dismantled. Much more could be done. This whole “left vs liberal” thing is such a waste of time.
That’s my point. Instead of attacking them, talk to them. Share your opinions, but don’t do it in some “I know more than you” and “I know what your beliefs are” type of way. None of us know each other outside of the little pieces of text we post here.
No, you are suggesting that their support of one group is an attack on others. Your position is that is wrong.
The USA has killed millions of innocent people in the past decade alone. How is this wrong?
You proceed to say “fuck em” about Americans who are under threat of attack.
Those millions of people are killed in their name and not only do they not do anything about it, they actively make excuses that if they don’t enable the genocides, then they’ll be killed instead, the epic cowards.
the position that American suffering (individuals, not the regime. We can agree the regime needs to be destroyed) is of no consequence to you.
No, not those complicit in American genocides, you for example and the vast majority of other Americans. Was every Nazi in WW2 completely aware of everything they were enabling? Probably not, do we still think they should be eliminated? Well? Do you?
It’s a shame that both sides of us have to just jump to attacking each other
You’re a Joe Biden supporter. You deserve it.
Your entire thesis here is just excuse making to support a genocidal regime. We have nothing in common.
I really dont know what in the fuck they are suggesting, they sound like a Russian shill trying to derail the rising tide of Class Conciousness in America by encouraging leftists to not vote, allowing the mask off fascist Republicans to win. They would apparently rather be ideologically pure and let the fascists win, than pinch their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils and maintain the status quo where large swaths of the population are actively waking up to the hypocrisies of our Capitalist system. Either way they reek of astroturf and are extremely disingenuous, and have completely ignored the onus i set for them to explain what happened in Italy and Germany when fascist took control there, because they dont give a shit and just want to see America burn. They dont give a damn about the Prolitariat.
Not one of these “Self-righteous leftists” have addressed my question about what happened to leftists in Germany or Italy when fascist took power there.
Because your question implies that selfish concerns ought to outweigh principles…
Maybe you should get your Facts right. The KPD only didnt participate in the 1919 election. In the last Reichstags eleciton in 1933 they got 12,3%. They where removed and procecuted after the Nazis blamed a Communist for the Reichstags fire. idk much about Italy but they also got a few seats before Mussolini. To your question about what happened to German Communists, they where either put into Prisons/KZs and killed there, flead to the Soviets or went to Spain to fight Facism there. idk about Italy but probalby the same.
Eyuppp the fascists killed them or ran them out of the country. The Prolitariat was never able to achieve the necessary class conciousness needed for a successful revolution and human history entered into one of its darkest and bloodiest chapters. Mask of fascism is bad for the Prolitariat and voting is the bare minimum of civic duty to prevent it from taking hold in a nation.
I never said it would have, was merely asking what happened to Communist in those countries when fascism came to power there. Your disingenuousness is showing.
Mask of fascism is bad for the Prolitariat and voting is the bare minimum of civic duty to prevent it from taking hold in a nation.
But voting didn’t prevent fascism in all the countries youre describing. In fact, theyre examples of how voting within a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie can’t prevent fascism.
Please note my use of the term bare minimum, if you arent going to vote you sure as shit arent going to organize. Voting is the bare minimum and an easy first step towards being more politically involved, why are you trying to discourage leftists from voting so hard? Do you want fascism to win the election or something?
Voting in bourgeois democracy is a way of channeling political activity into an unproductive avenue. It doesn’t follow that voting is required for political involvement. And also your original claim was that it was the bare minimum, it isnt. It is below the bare minimum. You could say “it is a step toward the bare minimum” and I’d disagree but that would be more accurate to what I believe you’re trying to convey.
Literally making radical unions as part of a socialist organization and doing serious mutual aid work. Providing logistical support to protestors where protesting=/=marching
I’m not saying that voting harder back then would have changed anything, but drawing a parallel between then and America today where mask of Fascism is very much on the ballot tomorrow and a year from now in the presidential election. Not voting to protect one’s ideological purity is the height of privilege.
Okay but voting didn’t prevent fascism in those countries. Fascism didn’t happen because some communists and anarchists refused to vote, it happened because of class war on the part of the petite bourgeoisie and precarious haut bourgeoisie
So if you spend months preparing a harvest, you’d be cool with someone turning up in the night and taking the crops after you’ve done all the hard work? After all the land wouldn’t being to you.
So do you think it’s fair for a group of people to raid a farm and pick what they haven’t contributed to growing as long as they take just enough to feed themselves, piggybacking off the work of the farmer? Why should the farmer agree to this?
Edit: rewrote the question to satisfy people who think asking questions about is somehow combative.
Sounds like you’re purposely twisting the person you’re responding to’s words to make them sound bad. It just ends up making you sound combative and doesnt further your arguement
Its not pertinent questions if you invent a scenario that the person you have questioned have not said they support. Do you think its fair to blame someone for something they did if a person put a loaded gun to their head and told them to do it? (See? My question has NOTHING to do with anything you’ve stated previously)
I invented a hypothetical scenario for a thought experiment yes. I don’t think it’s implausible as a scenario in a communal situation. If there is no private farmland property there is nothing to stop people just straight up taking things and abusing the goodwill of the farmer.
Except raiders by their VERY NATURE will raid regardless of whether the property is owned or not. Dude keeps up bringing up fairness as a key point to what he’s saying, and you keep inventing INHERENTLY UNFAIR scenarios that dont apply to what the person you are responding to is saying. Fairness = those who contribute more get more, those who contribute less get less
I’ve already admitted the word raid was the incorrect one. I was just questioning the idea that farmers should produce food for no compensation and that anybody should be free to work their land.
“raid” implies non-consent, so no, that’s not fair.
It’s also not fair for a farmer to find some prime farmland, build a fence around it and say no one else can touch it, and then keep everything it produces to himself, and then call everyone who wasn’t able to claim good land but still wants to eat a thief.
Why does he get rights to the land just because he said it’s his? That leads to feudalism.
“Civilization” is about finding balance to what’s fair.
It’s unfair for people to want something for nothing.
That extends to people wanting food, and also to the farmer claiming land.
Some arrangement where the farmer gets to keep his crops, but can’t exclude people from also working the land, with some sort of communal oversight to make sure the land is being worked well seems fair.
I agree the word raid was the wrong word to use there
They don’t just find land and build a fence around it though in the modern era, that’s extremely reductionist. They pay for the privilege to work the land. Society as a whole agree the land is his because of this.
How do you parse how much belongs to the farmer and how much belongs to the community? I would argue we already have an arrangement like that. Who oversees this and what do they get out of if?
Most importantly where is the incentive to maximise yield if people are just growing personal crops? What if you want to eat but don’t want to work the land?
You’re moving your goalposts at this point. The original point was literally about people claiming land in a primitive extraction system.
In the modern era people also don’t just walk up and demand bushels of barely from farmers, so ignoring the entirety of a comment to reply with how changing the context makes it irrelevant is just a bad faith discussion tactic.
Yes, a modern economic system is hard to develop inside of a single comment. I hope we can at least agree that feudalism is bad, despite it respecting the Lord’s property rights, and also that no one is okay with letting the Saxon horde take all our grain.
And, to jump straight to your questions about the modern day: I would propose a system where the vast majority of the engines of production would be worker owned, allowing them to select their own management as primary shareholders.
By merit of existing in society people would be entitled to food, shelter, medicine, a means to better themselves, and the basic dignites of modern life (clothing, the ability to have children, the ability to do more than sit in the floor and stare at the wall).
Beyond what’s needed to provide these basics, the excess value produced would be given to those that produced it in the form of “currency”, which can be exchanged for “goods” and “services”.
I’m aware that’s not how the modern world works,but evidently there are many in this thread who thinks that’s how it should work. I don’t think I’m engaging in bad faith whatsoever, I’m trying to actively address your points.
Why should workers own the means of production? What is incentivising them to even create the means of production without profit motive?
If workers own the means of production, what would stop them from deciding they’d rather sell said means to a capitalist for a profit?
Does every worker have an equal ownership? Does someone who has been working there for 10 years have the same rights as someone who is new? How do you decide this and who is overseeing this? What mechanisms exist to stop the primary shareholders from just assuming control and deciding to pay wages to people instead?
Who said anything about getting rid of profits? I directly mentioned that they would go to the workers. That’s what would give them incentive to do more than just live.
People go to work, people get paid, people spend their money on luxury goods like they do today. People are also entitled to the basics of life if they fall on hard times.
The capitalist can’t buy the means of production, because that’s not how ownership would work. He could get a job there, pay everyone to quit, and then as the only worker he would be entitled to everything that he made. Or he could convince the shareholders that he would be the best person to run the place, and become a worker that way.
Why should the Lord get to tell the serfs what to do, and take all their excess food just because he stabbed the old lord? Aren’t you in favor of the farmers getting to keep the food that they grew, without having to share with freeloaders?
I have no idea how the specifics of compensation would work. There are different models taken by different worker owned businesses, so there’s no single answer. Like with any business, the shareholders tend to elect a board to make most high level decisions, which includes ultimate responsibility for deciding compensation structure, which ownership levels for new workers would fall under.
This isn’t talking Soviet communism. This is basic democratic socialism with a hint of a spite towards the investor class who makes their living taking excess value from people who actually do stuff.
But the crucial thing is, people are already allowed to form co-operatives, there is nothing stopping you doing it for example. But outside of a select few niche industries they are generally less efficient and get outcompeted by traditional top down companies.
Being less efficient and being outcompeted are not synonymous.
We live in a system that overtly rewards and encourages people to organize things such that they’re rewarded for extracting excess value from workers and syphoning it to themselves and their investors.
Of course companies that do that are rewarded, because it’s designed that way.
That doesn’t make it more efficient, and it certainly doesn’t make it right.
Also, you’re failing to consider state owned enterprises, which is particularly popular in socialist democracies.
You’ve also entirely failed to explain why contributing money to an enterprise should entitle you to live off others work indefinitely.
Why does investment entitle people to live off said thing? That’s because there are agreements between the parties involved. If I want to start a business and need seed money I willingly enter a contract with investors just as they willingly risk their investment capital.
Of course they are more efficient, nobody sets up co operatives. If they were a more efficient way of running a business more people would do it.
You have an ideological disagreement with private ownership is how im interpretting your stance unless im misunderstanding. However. The idea of these communal structures society wide has died long ago because it simply can’t work inside the framework of how human beings are biologically wired. We are tribal primates, feudal hierarchical structures continue to be proven as inevitable despite all of our best efforts. Even with communism some of the earliest writings out of Russia one of the immediate concerns brought about by Russian revolutionaries was the concern that the class hierarchy in communism begins with the inception of the revolutionary class (those who are organizing and leading the revolution) and without fail thats what happened in every communist state. The revolutionaries took over and the first thing to happen is establishment of class hierarchy just like what happens in capitalist society. Collective agriculture in Russia and in China and in central america and in north korea lead to millions starved to death.
capitalism is a fucked up system. Rife with exploitation and amorality. But its also the system that has lifted the most people globally out of abject poverty than anything else in human history. It has raised life expectancies higher than ever before seen. It has lowered infant mortality by ridiculous levels. The number of people dying in war is lower than ever.
You have a government that in its constitution says right in the headline is “to provide for the general welfare” of its citizens. If you want to talk about more fair levels of distribution of essential resources then you utilize your government to negotiate buying food from the farmer and instituting a distribution mechanism for the people. Same reason why in my opinion I believe medicare needs to beable to negotiate with drug companies over prices. There needs to be a middle ground.
Yes, you have misinterpreted my position. I’m not opposed to private property. I love having stuff. Stuff is some of my favorite things to have, truth be told.
I’m opposed to hoarding, and I’m opposed to exploitation.
If the farmer wants to farm the land and sell the food, I’m all for that. If the land owner wants to have the farmer farm the land, then take all the money from the farmer selling it, keep most of it and pay the farmer just enough to get by, I think that instead the farmer should get that money.
When your contribution to the process is “I have stuff, so you should give me more”, then I question why you’re needed for the system to function.
Do you have anything to contribute? I’m trying to have an actual discussion about policy.
I think the profit incentive is important in maximising yield, do you have anything to add to this as to why I may be wrong? Or are you just going to signal me as an other so that others just switch off and get defensive.
I think it’s kind of ironic that some claim to want the world to see things from their point of view but then immediately attack those who question their views or try to understand. This just suggests to me you’re more about signalling to your in group than growth in ideas and discussion.
There is a lot to discuss. I’m discussing about why I think communal style living/economics don’t scale well. You think it does, there are reasons we both have our opinions and maybe we could actually learn from each other rather than you viewing me as someone to be defeated.
Of course discussion is needed. How else do you expand your mind and thoughts without discussing things? I don’t take your views as being inherently true in much the same way you don’t take mine, that’s healthy and normal.
Inequality, poverty, starvation, suffering, war… C’mon, man. These are issues that don’t need to exist, but do so in order to keep certain people in power. It’s all part of the machine.
You don’t need to discuss whether the sky appears blue because we know how sunlight interacts with our atmosphere. The same is true for this issue.
I would argue the primary cause of all of these problems is that we live in a world of finite resources. I think all of those things would still be problems under any political system we tried to implement. If there was plenty of resources for everyone we would just multiply until that wasn’t the case any more.
I reject the notion that we could rid the world of these things, the entirety of human history provides empirical evidence that backs me up on this. I think it’s fantastical to think we could rid the world of these things, all we can do is try to reduce the impact as best we can in the limited ways that we can as individuals and as a society.
We produce more than enough food to feed everyone. Even if you say something like logistics is an issue, we could still feed everyone in the developed nations at least, but we don’t. That’s a choice.
Climate change is much more of a practical issue than starvation and poverty. We already have solutions for starvation as I said.
We don’t have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that’s why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don’t think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.
That’s what I am trying to tell you. There are no logistical problems we don’t have the capacity to solve, it’s simply not profitable to do so. Feeding the poor who can’t pay you isn’t profitable so it doesn’t get done.
Geopolitical, as in a combination of political, cultural and geographical.
I don’t think noting the problem is partially political is enough to say it’s easily solveable.
I think we’re coming at this from a different philosophy, you see politics as something that is easily changeable, I see it as a product of environmental and cultural positions. Changing the entire world’s politics is a nigh on impossible task.
You see geopolitics as a variable, I see it as a constraint on the actual variables.
You’re conflating ownership of the means of production with ownership of the fruits of one’s labor. The land itself can’t be owned, but things you have produced can be.
I went on a ghost tour once and they tried to use an EM reader like a goddamn PKE.
‘This timeball tower is haunted by an old keeper look!!’
Bitch you’re literally surrounded by people with mobile phones in their pockets, and there’s a goddamn maritime signalling tower on top of the damned thing.
Here in Romania that is unheard of. The courier will personally hand it to the recipient. If you are not home, you have the option to redirect it to a different address, courier HQ or some local stores that they have contract with. And even so, they ask for a verification code you get via sms in the morning. It’s very unlikely to lose a package.
Nothing tedious really. If you work from home you just go out for 2 mins to tell the courier the code and get your package. If you are in the office, you redirect the package to a store on your way home, tell them the code and get your package. Either way, it takes 5 min tops to make sure the recipient is the only person that can pick up the package.
Sounds like a better system. Here in Ireland, the trucks park with two wheels on the footpath and the flashers on, blocking one lane of traffic on a two lane road (completely fucking pedestrians and cyclists, and making cars have to be driven out into the opposing lane of traffic) while the driver fucks your package up against the door and they leave without ringing the bell (you’ll get an email or text, though).
We don’t use Amazon unless we, in the over 40 year old person usage of the word literal, literally cannot find something we literally need. When we extremely reluctantly do though, this is how it goes.
Up until a few months ago amazon didn’t have free delivery here, it was about 6-11€ for shipping, so the deals had to be really good to make it worth it. But since then, they added free delivery for orders over 49€, so I expect ppl to start using amazon more often.
The way couriers deliver the packages is the same for both amazon and the local online stores tho.
Not true here in Sweden, tho. I work in parcel delivery and I’m instructed to leave at the door (or next to the mailbox if it doesn’t fit), at least if it’s Class A or Express. Class B get one delivery attempt and then sent to service point if unsuccessful.
I am also from Sweden, I have always been called (or texted) and asked (if I am not home) if it is OK to leave it outside. Some call me before hand to check if I am home before trying to deliver it even. You can (most of the time) choose if you are OK with them leaving it outside if you aren’t home otherwise they will not do that unless you say it is OK through text or a call. But maybe only the delivery companies I have picked have this kind of policy. I never pick a class for my packages so maybe I always get b class? What kind get A class?
Calling every recipient sounds like your delivery person has quite a bit lower daily volumes than me to deal with. Or you always order Express. Class B has the lowest priority; the same as a regular postcard would have.
lemmy.ml
Top