Dude why do people think communism means you can’t own anything. There’s a difference between private and personal properties. You can own a house, and a car, hell even a whole farm. What you cannot do is hold capital.
One of the thousands of nuanced use cases that generalist communist revolutionaries haven’t even thought about let alone have the skills to provide solutions for.
Wild how even when they were going full-on gulags , their peak imprisonment rate didn’t surpass the United States. And we’ve got plenty of bullets for those that run or resist arrest.
Rule of thumb and there are always exceptions, land that you live and work on is usually personal property, land that you own but someone else pays you for the privilege of living and working on is private property.
Therefore it could count as a means of production but in general in Communism personal farms of reasonable size and constant use are encouraged. Again, that’s a misunderstanding of communism.
That’s not a feature of communism, it’s a compromise based on the recognition that private ownership produces more efficient outcomes at scale. According to the collective farming wiki: A Soviet article in March 1975 found that 27% of the total value of Soviet agricultural produce was produced by private farms despite the fact that they only consisted of less than 1% of arable land (approximately 20 million acres), making them roughly 40 times more efficient than collective farms.
No one wants to recreate the Great Famine (The most deadly famine in human history - caused entirely by communism and specifically collectivized farms).
There’s also Holomodor in the USSR which lead to similarly deadly outcomes.
Fun fact for you: The famines were largely caused by Stalin appointing a guy to do agriculture policy who knew less than nothing about agriculture. He forced farmers to plant crops too densely because “communist crops will not compete for nutrients” causing the crops to just die. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
Most dictators are absolute troglodytes and Stalin was no exception.
One point in time does not constitute a robust conclusion. Consider any time before and how collectivism did yield considerable agriculture gains for the USSR. Like do we really think they fought WW2 with the same or less agricultural efficiency they had before their revolution?
“A fledgling Nation failed after the most powerful nations on earth collectively conspired to hold it back and ideally topple it so every similar nation most also fail.” And these people were paranoid for some reason, could you imagine?
Oversimplified for brevity, but basically: You may not be able to OWN a farm in the sense that the land itself is collectivized (not even always true under socialism, depends on specific policies and also whether you consider the “farm” to be a different entity from the land it’s sitting on, in that case you often own the farm itself, just look at home ownership rates in socialist countries), but you can USE and WORK ON the farm to generate products for yourself and society at large. I don’t see it as that different practically from the perspective of the farmer, since they’re still living on the land and taking advantage of its productivity.
I think that’s certainly better than renting or mortgaging the land and having to deal with landlords and banks. Collectivization usually freed farmers from their obligation to their landlord or private bank and they just continued farming as normal. It’s the landlords who had their “livelihood” taken away (i.e. land that they owned but someone else was living and working on), not the farmers doing the actual work.
Perhaps you have a source on the collective farms of the Great Leap Forward years in Communist China, or a URL that points to the collective farms in the Ukraine and how it made the farmers better off?
There are no unbiased sources. Zero. Because that’s not how politics or the world works.
Also, I fail to see how they’re badly cited. It’s literally a giant list of links to books, historical records, news articles, and write-ups by other socialists that are also cited.
The sources range wildly, some are just images and links to podcasts or articles. For example the “How many people did the Great Leap Forward kill” link just goes to a Reddit comment on r/communism where the OP just says “it’s fine… there were famines all the time in China!”.
Because in practice the line between capital and personal property is very thin. Can a car or apartment not be used to generate income in a modern economy?
When the soviets were in power they would force multiple families under one roof (kommunalka). Think 4-8 families sharing a kitchen and a bathroom. Each family was given just one room and all housing was considered communal housing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment?wprov=sf…
After Stalin’s death families began receiving single family apartments due to massive housing reform by Kruschev, but were hastily built and called ‘khrushchyoba,’ a cross between Khrushchev’s name and the Russian term for slums. That by the way still leaves a multigenerational period from 1917-1954 where the kommunalka would have been the primary unit of housing.
You can generate money with a car or a farm. The whole problem with capitalism is getting money without working because you let people work with your stuff. So owning a car and use ist as a taxi is fine with communism. Having a taxi company is not. But you can form a taxi company with others. The difference is no one has financial power over others. No one just profits because he/she is the owner. There are people in charge but they are in charge because they have the knowledge and ability not just because they own everything and can do what they want.
How dare you make fiscally responsible investments and expect some return in exchange for the risk you’re taking on by letting others use your stuff. How. Dare. You. /s
Risk is an idiot’s justification. Anyone who owns a business knows the whole point of a limited liability corporation is it removes any risk in case of failure.
If Walmart went tits up today the Walton’s would still be rich. It’s the workers who bear all the risk.
People accuse leftists of idealist thinking but in what fantasy world are you thinking your personal savings from selling your labor is ever going to come close to what would be considered “capital” in the sense being discussed here?
You’re right that wealth is concentrated, but I was saying that the assets are collectively owned. For example I am a shareholder of Amazon, a publicly-traded company that Jeff Bezos owns a large stake in. So Amazon is “collectively owned” but each share gets one vote instead of one person.
Shares only give you voting power if you have a massive amount of them. In the vast majority of cases shares function as either a place to store wealth to protect it from inflation or as speculative gambling, the majority of use cases is not to signify ownership. I would not classify that as collective ownership, maybe only in theory if you don’t look into it too much but real world application of shares is definitely not collective ownership.
I’m very much in favour of businesses being actually collectively owned through a coop business model though.
Plenty of things are legally indistinguishable but real world applications are often quite different.
Though I would also challage that claim since owning a joint business gives you legal deciding power while owning 1 stock does not, you get zero votes from that.
Why should you get money for doing nothing? I think that is a good question. If your investments are earning money, for example because you invested in real estate, then you’ve driven up the price of rent for the rest of us.
But anyway, in reality almost all of the money in the stock market is held by people who are not like you, people who didn’t save their money by working a nine to five for 10 or 20 years.
Nobody is stopping you from leaving your money sitting in a bank account. Nobody is suggesting you shouldn’t save money.
If you want to work to earn some money and then save it and then later spend it, great. But you’re not content with that.
Let’s look at a simple example. Suppose you take your savings and you buy a rental property and start renting it out. You’re taking a risk that perhaps property prices will go down, or that maybe you’ll run into a string of 10 bad tenants in a row, and you might lose some money. All the while, you’re sitting there doing absolutely nothing, and probably you’re getting paid for it. But what about your tenants? What’s the risk they’re taking? They could pay rent on time for decades and yet never be able to qualify for a loan to buy property of their own, because people like you have bought up what used to be more widely available. A huge percent of the population is working paycheck to paycheck, and if they have a string of bad luck that lasts more than a month or two then they’re going to end up homeless. Of course their life expectancy will be slashed in a second. In other words, my friend, you’re risking some extra money while they’re risking their lives.
Also, as several of us have pointed out, most investment money is held by the rich so that they can get richer at our expense. Many people would prefer to get rid of that system rather than try and piggyback on it. There are other ways to structure society so that you can retire in comfort.
It’s not extracted it’s combined with labour to produce higher output than labour or capital on their own.
For example a worker with a shovel could only dig a small hole a day, but with the injection of capital (ie a backhoe) they can dig many more holes. The worker can increase their pay compared to what they would’ve made with just a shovel and the person that provided the backhoe can also generate a healthy return for their capital contribution.
How is it healthy that some rich investor gets to play golf all day because he can afford to buy backhoes and hire people to use them? How is it healthy that he earns more money if he pays them less, or that he alone is in charge of resources that a whole community worked to produce? What is healthy about any of this?
What you are describing is the entire fucking premise of socialism: workers cannot afford the means of production, so production ends up controlled by a handful of wealthy capitalists with perverse incentives and no loyalty to the rest of the human race. An entire tradition of thought is dedicated to how unhealthy that is.
Again, capital is extracted from labor. Who do you think built the back hoe? It didn’t fall off the back hoe tree. Workers built it, workers designed it. If some capitalist pig didn’t own it, then the laborers could just use it.
Even a labourer who has saved up can buy a back-ho. The backho could have been produced by a communist country or work co-op. Who produced the back-ho is not important.
The important thing is that value is stored, invested and combined with labour to make everyone better off. This is why wages are higher in countries with more capital such as the USA.
That was a really fascinating read, thanks. Checked out a few of the other links from the wiki. Do you happen to have or know where I can see interior pictures and floorplans?
I’ll try looking it up myself in the meantime; I love stuff of that nature
I had an item in my Amazon cart yesterday morning. Wait until the end of the day to order, in case I wanted other stuff. When I came back, it notified me the price had risen from 30USD to 50USD.
I searched for the item again, checked it, and it was 30USD.
Because every item on Amazon can have many different sellers, some of them have the same product in the same Amazon warehouses. OP added the item to their cart using the default seller, it just so happens that the seller also raised their prices that day. So the price went up in OP’s cart.
Searching the product on Amazons store likely still said $30 because Amazon switched the default seller to the new cheapest one, which was no longer the seller that OP added to the cart.
I worked at a pizza place in highschool and one of our delivery drivers was an elderly guy who drove your typical delivery driver beat up old Honda Civic type car. He was a super nice guy, but never talked much about himself. Then one day he shows up to work in a Maserati because apparently his Civic wouldn’t start. Turns out he was a crew member with freaking Jacques Cousteau and was very wealthy. He just delivered pizza for something to do and because he liked meeting new people.
He eventually sold the Maserati to one of my coworkers for a couple of thousand of dollars because it needed a new fuel pump and he didn’t feel like dealing with it. Yet, he kept that sun bleached Civic for as long as I worked there.
I went to graduate school with a guy who turned out to be from a super-wealthy family but we never suspected because he drove an honest-to-god fucking Yugo. I rode in it once and pulled the window crank off the door before he had a chance to stop me. He drove the Yugo because he wanted to fit in with us poors - we should have suspected something was up because not even the poorest of the poor graduate students drove Yugos. He finally blew his cover when the Yugo died and he had to come to school in his other car, a brand-new Range Rover.
You can uninstall it with winget uninstall cortana, never gave me any issues, works like a charm. Removing edge will break some stuff though, you need some edge render thingie for certain programs like Weather.
While I definitely COULD stand to lose a few, I’ve heard some pretty bad things about crash diets… You’re not gonna trick me into drinking cayenne pepper lemonade, right?
How is Endeavor OS? I’m using kubuntu now and wanted to switch to something with a lean base. I recall there were some issues with the founder leaving the project.
didn’t hear anything about that, maybe you mean AntergOs? Endeavor Os is kinda the follow-up from AntergOs when the founder there stopped working on it.
but endeavor is it’s own thing very close to pure arch just has a nice gui installer.
Oh I think it might be elementaryOS. I remember never getting antergOS to install, good old times. That said, I do have experience with bare arch install and AUR is indeed awesome.
I no longer use arch btw. I will try endeavor this weekend, thanks!
It’s enabled on my work terminal. It’s actually kinda useful to be able to check if I’m dismissing class into a snowstorm or something when we’re in a room without windows.
It’s basically the new Electron, without most of the bloat of the old Electron. Pretty sweet deal for app developers who need to write an app for both desktops and phones.
Salmon: How did you know pink was my favorite color!
ppl: Uh, what?
Salmon: Yeah! All the prettiest flowers are pink! I also like the sense of calm the color instills, the feminine yet loud conveyance, the fact that it's the color of my birth stone...
ppl: oh, well, that's pretty cool
Salmon: And the fact that it reminds me of the blood of my enemies, and awakens my chaotic and violent nature upon seeing it!
Unless it’s a RAM filling issue, because you would have too little RAM, and even then, the entire OS crashing and not just Firefox would be very unlikely, I don’t see any reason for it to crash your entire OS. Regardless, there are Firefox forks that use much much less RAM. You’re using Windows, Mac or Linux first? Try to uninstall, clean everything and reinstall with a new profile, it may work, who knows. If not, then it has to be your OS.
I don't think it's a RAM issue, unless Firefox eats 16GB of RAM. I mainly use Pop!_OS, a *nix distro, so maybe I messed up some package install that conflicts with Firefox in some way, but I haven't figured out which one.
Pop!OS is a pretty stable distro, so there shouldn’t be any dependencies problem: you usually have that on arch or arch based distros, even if it’s quite rare. Have you ever uninstalled Firefox and reinstalled it but without some of its dependencies? Or ignored a package it asked you to install with it afterwards? If not, maybe it’s just an update that went wrong, like the PC shut down during an update or something. So update your system, uninstall firefox and reinstall. Your data stored in your home directory (in .mozilla, a hidden folder) like your history, extensions, opened tabs, should be conserved, even if you use apt purge.
I used it for years and just recently switched to Firefox. I was just comfortable using it, and knew how to use the dev tools. I had my extensions set up how I liked. I’m still missing a few things on Firefox but fuck chrome.
While there might not be an addon that perfectly emulates every feature of Toby on Firefox, I am fully confident you can achieve all of its features with settings, config/userchrome edits, or some of the addons that are available. Personally I use Tab Session Manager and Tab Center Reborn (heavily edited though), so you might look into those and see if they have features you like.
I use duckduckgo and they have bangs. Put !yt at the start of your search and it’ll automatically search youtube, !g for google, !a for Amazon, etc… Loads of bangs for basically every service out there.
I had an extension called Toby that opened a new tab and had an awesome page to organize bookmarks and open tabs. I can’t remember what I’m using on Firefox right now as I’m not at the computer, but it’s probably the most popular bookmark organizer. IMO Toby is just way ahead of anything I’ve found on Firefox.
There was a stretch of time where it was legitimately the best popular browser for the vast majority of people. Then it just became the default, and nobody bothered to switch back once it started going to shit
The last time I tried Firefox on a touch device the pitch to zoom function was basically useless. It was nothing but an equivalent to [Ctrl] + [+]. This was some years ago, so it could be better now.
It’s really easy to forget that back in the day (by which I mean what, 2010? Idk) chrome was super speedy and very cool with cool fast looking angular tabs and Google was a nice new cool internet company who’s moto was don’t be evil and the alternative was fucking internet explorer which was a cinder block in a blue shirt or Firefox which had a cool logo but was rather slow and the joke was that internet explorer’s whole purpose was to download chrome and I guess what I’m saying is that Google has lived long enough to see itself become the villain, or at least Comcast which is pretty much the same thing and tbh the only other time I can think of that something like this has actually happened is in 1998, when The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table
I use chrome for work because it’s installed on every computer we have and the machines are locked down so I can’t install firefox if I wanted to. I move around between stations all the time so logging in and having all my bookmarks, passwords, history, etc… synced is convenient. I use firefox at home but most people just stick with what’s familiar to them. It’s a solid browser feature-wise and that’s what most people care about.
I didn't notice it at first, but yeah. Why on earth would someone do that? It seems like such an inefficient method. Like, I highly doubt this picture is going to go viral or anything.
If this is a screenshot from a televised event (idk anything about it so idk if it is) it may have been done as processing for TV. They do it in the NHL with TV airings. They’ll cover the ads on the side of the arena with other ads more relevant to viewers not near the arena.
For example if Pittsburgh plays Edmonton at Edmonton. Edmonton has a bunch of ads for businesses in the Edmonton area but not Pittsburgh. So on TV they’ll digitally cover them with another ad that is either something nationally acceptable or local to Pittsburgh.
Probably not. I know nothing about the origin of the picture. I just wanted to provide some alternative. Idk why someone would put an app in the back of a picture completely irrelevant to it. It’s pretty crappy and really not good marketing.
well chrome = basically chromium So basically all changes from chrome carry over to chromium - and subsequently chromium-based browsers like brave opera edge etc
It’s just art. You can’t blame me for not knowing anything about who this “A. Hitler” is supposed to be. Do I have to ask my swastika tattooed art dealer about his political views before buying from him?
Building a browser is hard, and it’s even harder when one of the maker of the most popular browser also operates several of the most popular websites. So most other browsers (Edge, Brave, Opera, and many more) are Chromium under the hood. This means that they often implement Google’s preferred web functionality as opposed to the actual standard. If Google wants some feature going into the browser, most Chromium derivatives will follow their lead. Even though Brave has rejected many of Google’s moves, I’d argue it still isn’t enough since they still give Google some control over web standards.
The Internet needs to be impartial and fair in its design, this means it shouldn’t be influenced by any one interest in particular. Google’s indirect influence over nearly the whole browser market goes against the principle of an open web. The only way to fight effectively this is to use an independent browser, like Firefox.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.