Porsche Cars in Russia “Turn Into Bricks” After Massive Satellite Security Outage
Porsche Cars in Russia “Turn Into Bricks” After Massive Satellite Security Outage
Porsche owners in Russia face immobilization issues due to a satellite alarm system failure, with reports indicating widespread problems across major cities.Liubava Petriv (UNITED24 Media)
Paramount Pictures X Account Hacked to Read ‘Proud Arm of the Fascist Regime’
The official account for Paramount Pictures on X(Twitter) was compromised Tuesday. The description in the account’s bio was changed to read: “Proud arm of the fascist regime.”
Note: the account has been recovered.
Sources:
- ScreenRant;
- Variety.
Paramount X/Twitter Account Hacked to Read 'Proud Arm of the Fascist Regime'
The official account for Paramount Pictures on X was seemingly hacked, to alter the account's bio as "Proud arm of the fascist regime."Todd Spangler (Variety)
Paramount Pictures X Account Hacked to Read ‘Proud Arm of the Fascist Regime’
The official account for Paramount Pictures on X(Twitter) was compromised Tuesday. The description in the account’s bio was changed to read: “Proud arm of the fascist regime.”
Note: the account has been recovered.
Sources:
- ScreenRant;
- Variety.
Paramount X/Twitter Account Hacked to Read 'Proud Arm of the Fascist Regime'
The official account for Paramount Pictures on X was seemingly hacked, to alter the account's bio as "Proud arm of the fascist regime."Todd Spangler (Variety)
I nuläget är flera personer delgivna misstanke om brott inom bolaget Intellegro Technologies AB. Samtidigt har åklagare beslutat att inte inleda förundersökning utifrån aktieägarnas anmälningar om brottet oredligt förfarande.
blog.zaramis.se/2025/12/10/utr…
Für alle, die Fragen zu Linux auf dem eigenen PC/Laptop haben, Unterstützung bei der Installation oder Vorarbeiten dazu brauchen, oder sich einfach austauschen wollen. Wir sind ein Team aus Freiwilligen, das sich gerne einmal im Monat Zeit nimmt um persönlich erreichbar zu sein. Wir organisieren das Treffen als gemütliche Runde in einem ruhig gelegenen Grazer Café, etwaige Konsumationen sind selbst zu bezahlen.
Erkennt uns am Tux (Pinguin-Maskottchen im Bild) - kommt vorbei!
For anyone who has questions about Linux on their own PC/laptop, needs support with the installation or preparatory work, or simply wants to exchange ideas. We are a team of volunteers who like to take time once a month to be personally available. We organize the meeting as a cozy get-together in a quiet café in Graz, any consumptions are to be paid by yourself.
Recognize us by the Tux (penguin mascot in the picture) - join us!
The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment
The topic of the Rust experiment was just discussed at the annual Maintainers Summit. The consensus among the assembled developers is that Rust in the kernel is no longer experimental — it is now a core part of the kernel and is here to stay. So the "experimental" tag will be coming off. Congratulations are in order for all of the Rust for Linux team.
The end of the kernel Rust experiment
The topic of the Rust experiment was just discussed at the annual Maintainers Summit. The cons [...]LWN.net
like this
TVA likes this.
It's been 20 years since I did any serious programming, so I'm a bit rusty, is that what Rust is for?
No, Rust is to make you feel like you haven't programmed seriously in 20 years when you first pick it up, even though you are actively doing it.
Before the angry rust "mob" comes to get me: this is a joke. I tried Rust out of genuine curiosity, cobbled together a silly little thing, and quite liked it. The borrow checker made me feel like a total beginner again, in some aspects, and it was great to get that feeling again.
Ultimately it does not fit my needs, but there are a few features I am pretty envious of. I can totally see why it's getting such a following, and I hope it keeps growing.
Enjoy! I don't know what you used to seriously program on but I am willing to bet that the ownership paradigm that it enforces is going to feel at least moderately new to you, unless you forced yourself to code that way anyways.
Plus, as long as you're doing silly little home projects, the compiler errors are the absolute best I've ever seen. Literally just learn basic syntax, try it out, and when it does not compile, the compiler not only tells you why but also what it thinks you're trying to do and how to fix.
Absolute gem of a learning tool.
like this
TVA likes this.
I am willing to bet that the ownership paradigm that it enforces is going to feel at least moderately new to you
Absolutely, I am more used to program closer to the iron mostly C. My favorite was 68000 Assembly, python is nice, but I prefer compiled languages for efficiency. Although that efficiency isn't relevant for basic tasks anymore.
The compiler error messages sound extremely cool. 👍
Ah, a fellow C coder. Never did do assembly with chips older than x86_64 basically. The only old school stuff I touched was writing an interpreter for the CHIP-8. I tried writing some CHIP-8 too, but coming from more recent paradigms, it seemed quite unwieldy to me.
I like python for quick and dirty stuff, I don't like python for being interpreted and it being not obvious what happens under the hood, memory wise, at a glance.
Seeing as you do C I'll say this. The one thing I really did not enjoy, subjectively, with Rust, is that writing "C-style loops" comes with a performance penalty because there are bound checks happening, so the idiomatic version of a loop in Rust usually involves iterators and function composition.
I am stupid. C-loops are easy for me to understand. More sophisticated stuff is hard for my little brain. I'd rather be trusted with my memory access, and be reminded of my stupidity when comes the inevitable segfault. Keeps you humble.
it being not obvious what happens under the hood
To me it feels like it does things I didn't ask it to. So I'm not 100% in control 😋
the idiomatic version of a loop in Rust usually involves iterators and function composition.
What? You need to make a function to make a loop? That can't be right???
C-loops are easy for me to understand.
Absolutely, the way C loops work is perfect. I'm not so fond of the syntax, but at least it's logical in how it works.
What? You need to make a function to make a loop? That can't be right???
Ah no, there is a misunderstanding. You can write C-loops, of course, they just could involve more work under the hood because in order to enforce memory safety, there needs to be some form of bounds checking that does not happen in C. Caveat: I don't know whether that's always true, and what the subtleties are. Maybe I'm wrong about that even, but what is true is that what I am about to say, you will encounter in Rust codebases.
By function composition I meant in the mathematical sense. So, this example explains the gist of it. You may need to throw in a lambda function in there to actually do the job, yeah. I don't know what the compiler actually reduces that to though.
It's just the more functional approach that you can also see with Haskell for example. I find it harder to parse, but that may be lack of training rather than intrinsic difficult.
EDIT: pasted the wrong link to something totally irrelevant, fixed now
Function Composition and Pipelines in Rust: Building Complex Functionality
Explore the art of building complex functionality by composing simple functions and creating pipelines in Rust. Learn how to chain functions using method notation, leverage iterators and combinators, and enhance code readability and maintainability.Software Patterns Lexicon
for element in array.iter() {
println!("{element}");
}
The one thing I really did not enjoy, subjectively, with Rust, is that writing "C-style loops" comes with a performance penalty because there are bound checks happening, so the idiomatic version of a loop in Rust usually involves iterators and function composition.
IIRC you can speed up such checks by putting an assertion in front that checks for the largest index - this will make repeated checks for smaller indices unnecessary. Also, bound checks are often not even visible on modern CPUs because speculative execution, branch prediction, and out-of-order execution. The CPU just assumes that the checks will succeed, and works on the next step.
I had no idea about the assertion! Thanks.
Yes, this is plain wrong or often unimportant on modern architecture, you're right. I, certainly mistakenly, thought this was one of the reasons for the idiomatic version involving function composition, which is the thing I, subjectively, don't enjoy as much.
I stand corrected.
The function composition style comes from functional programming and Rust's OCaml heritage. It can make it easier to reason about invriants and possible sets of values of the result of a computation step.
Rust transforms these to the same or a close equivalent of hand-written loops.
Similar methods are used in specialized, high-performance C++ libraries such as blitz++ and Eigen. But if you mess up bounds, you will get UB with them.
I like Python for quick and dirty stuff
There is one more little secret that not everyone knows:
You do not need lifetime annotations and full borrow checking if you do not care to press out the last drop of performance out of the CPU, or if you just draft experimental code.
In fact, you can very much program in a style that is similar to python:
- just pass function arguments as references, or make a copy (if you need to modify them)
- just return copies of values you want to return.
This makes your code less efficient, yes. But, it avoids to deal with the borrow checker before you really need it, because the copied values get an own life time. It will still be much faster than Python.
This approach would not work for heavily concurrent, multi-threaded code. But not everyone needs Rust for that. There are other quality-of-life factors which make Rust interesting to use.
... and of course it can't beat Python for ease of use. But it is in a good place between Python and C++. A bit more difficult than Java, yes. But when you need to call into such code from Python, it is far easier than Java.
Enjoy! I don't know what you used to seriously program on but I am willing to bet that the ownership paradigm that it enforces is going to feel at least moderately new to you, unless you forced yourself to code that way anyways.
Thinking about ownership is the right way e.g. for C++ as well, so if one has coded professionally in larger systems, it should not be too alien.
One still needs to learn life time annotations. So, assuming that you know, for example, C++, it is an a bit larger hurdle than picking up Java or Go, but it is worth the time.
In many aspects, Rust is far more productive and also more beginner-friendly than C++:
- far better compiler error messages
- a superb and easy-to-use packaging system
- Unicode support
- support for unit testing right in the language
- strong support for a side-effect-free or "functional programming" style which is great for testing and tasks like data analysis or parsing
- better modularization
- avoids implementation inheritance, and the trait system is a bit different but superb
- no undefined behavior (in safe Rust) which means nothing less than that the code does what it says - and this is extremely useful in larger projects
- great support for safe concurrency
- the language and library frees one to think about interfaces and algorithms which is where the big wins for performance are hidden (and IMO one of the key factors for the astounding success of Python).
I could go on... but I need to do other stuff
Thanks for the detailed answer. Preaching to the choir.
The existence of the concept of ownership in languages like C++ is why I threw "moderately" in there. I agree depending on what you take that to mean, it may or may not do some heavy lifting.
For the rest, I'd divide it into hard facts (compiler messages are absolutely undeniable, in any circumstance) and things that can definitely be true depending on your personal use cases. I'm with you on this: for the vast vast majority of tasks commonly understood as software engineering, memory safety is a concern, and a lot, if not all, of your points, are valid.
I must humbly insist that it does not fit my needs, in the sense that memory safety is of no concern to me, and that the restrictions that a compiler-enforced approach imposes make me less productive, and, subjectively, also less enjoyable because causing more friction.
That being said, you may also not consider what I'm currently doing to be software engineering, and that's totally fine. Then we'd agree entirely.
EDIT: also, there are very few languages less productive and beginner-friendly than C++ in my opinion. The proverbial bar is in hell. But you are talking to an unreasonable C++ hater.
EDIT: also, there are very few languages less productive and beginner-friendly than C++ in my opinion.
I am a professional C++ developer with 20 years of experience and have worked in about eight other languages professionally, while learning and using a dozen more in hobby projects.
I agree with you here. The only areas where specifics are worse are package management in Python, and maintainability of large SIMULINK models.
That's the sort of indictment of C++ I like to hear. It's not just me then. I sometimes feel like I'm taking crazy pills with some colleagues who are super enthusiastic about it still.
But again, I'm stupid, I know I'm stupid, and C++ has way too many features and convoluted behaviours which are hard for me to remember and reason about. It often feels like it makes me think more about the language problems than the actual problem I'm supposed to work on. It may say more about me than the language, but I do feel validated with comments like this.
Generally no. As soon as a class hierarchy becomes moderately complex, implementation inheritance makes code very hard to maintain, because you need to read the whole stack of classes to see what a single change will actually do.
Rust has another system, traits and trait implementations.
What have you been doing since you stopped programming?
Alternatively, why did you stop (seriously) programming?
Lots of "modern" languages don't interop terribly well with other languages, because they need a runtime environment to be executed.
So, if you want to call a Python function from Java, you need to start a Python runtime and somehow pass the arguments and the result back and forth (e.g. via CLI or network communication).
C, C++, Rust and a few other languages don't need a runtime environment, because they get compiled down to machine code directly.
As such, you can call functions written in them directly, from virtually any programming language. You just need to agree how the data is laid out in memory. Well, and the general agreement for that memory layout is the C ABI. Basically, C has stayed the same for long enough that everyone just uses its native memory layout for interoperability.
And yeah, the Rust designers weren't dumb, so they made sure that Rust can also use this C ABI pretty seamlessly. As such, you can call Rust-functions from C and C-functions from Rust, with just a bit of boilerplate in between.
This has also been battle-tested quite well already, as Mozilla used this to rewrite larger chunks of Firefox, where you have C++ using its C capabilities to talk to Rust and vice versa.
No. The Rust code in the kernel is GPLv2 just like the rest of the kernel. The licence of the compiler has nothing to do with that, that's nonsense Rust haters make up.
You can argue against independent projects like the Rust coreutils not using a copyleft license, but that has nothing to do with Rust or the kernel. There are independent C projects without non-copyleft licenses too.
like this
TVA likes this.
Ah thank you. You likely guessed the reason for the question.
Many popular projects written in Rust, including the UUtils core utils rewrite, are MIT licensed as Rust is. There have been people that purposely confuse things by saying that “the Rust community” is undermining the GPL. I can see how that may lead somebody to believe that there is some kind of inherent licence problem with code written in Rust.
Code written in Rust can of course be licensed however you want from AGPL to fully proprietary.
I personally perceive a shift in license popularity towards more permissive licenses at least with the “younger generation”. The fact that so many Rust projects are permissively licensed is just a consequence of those kinds of licenses being more popular with the kinds of “modern” programmers that would choose Rust as a language to begin with. Those programmers would choose the same licenses even they used the GCC toolchain. But the “modern” languages they have to choose from are things like Rust, Swift, Zig, Go, or Gleam (all permissively licensed ). Python and TypeScript are also still trendy (also permissively licensed).
Looking at that list, it is pretty silly to focus on Rust’s license. Most of the popular programming languages released over the past 20 years are permissively licensed.
Many popular projects written in Rust, including the UUtils core utils rewrite, are MIT licensed as Rust is. There have been people that purposely confuse things by saying that “the Rust community” is undermining the GPL.
How would that ever be a problem in any case? I mean I'm not that versed in licensing stuff, but MIT explicitly allows sublicensing, so if in doubt just slap a GPL-sticker on the MIT code and you are good, no?
I have never heard the licensing of Rust being raised as a concern for the Linux kernel.
As Charles Babbage would say, “I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”
The distro I use builds the entire Linux kernel with Clang which uses the same license as Rust. Linux is bound by the same modified GPL license regardless of what compiler I use to build it.
The compiler has no impact on the license applied to the code you build with that compiler. You can use closed source tools to build open source software and vice versa.
And, of course, the Rust license is totally open source as it is offered as both MIT and Apache. Apache 2.0 even provides patent guarantees which can matter for something like a compiler.
If you prefer to use GPL tools yourself, you may want to keep an eye on gccrs.
A legitimate concern about Rust may be that LLVM (Rust) supports a different list of hardware than GCC does. The gccrs project addresses that.
Tolv personer har dömts till långa fängelsestraff för olika inblandning i storskalig cannabisodling. I december 2024 häktades nio personer misstänkta för inblandning i synnerligen grov narkotikabrottslighet. I april 2025 häktades ytterligare tre personer. I september 2025 åtalades de tolv personerna.
blog.zaramis.se/2025/12/10/sto…
Why We Make ALIS: The Enemy Within
The ALIS Codex: Learn. Survive. Connect.
Anarcho-transhumanism is an anti-capitalist ideology blending anarchism and transhumanism, advocating for liberation from social and biological constraints through technology, viewing freedom as expanding physical and mental capabilities beyond natural limits, opposing hierarchies like state/capitalism, and using tools like biohacking, AI, and free software to achieve radical individual autonomy and collective enhancement, often arising as a counter to primitivist anti-technology stances
Ripped this off from google
What would the mechanism be to exterminate 37% of the human race with this degree of precision? Who would be in charge of it and why do we trust them not to continue using such a tool? If it's not a military operation, what would it be?
A major, fundamental issue with your suggestion is that it assumes there are multiple species of humans which exist who are fundamentally different on a genetic level. If I was a god who could snap my fingers and instantly obliterate all conservatives, it would not be the end of conservatism. You yourself are locked in violent thinking, are you absolutely certain that your own children couldn't possibly be attracted to violence when you yourself believe that mass violence on an unprecedented scale is the best opportunity to create a just world? Are you certain that no child born of any survivors would carry any temptation to take advantage of others as those in the past have? Are you sure no one in the surviving billions of people, generationally removed from your mass killing, would have the ability to re-invent a dipshit philosophy like fascism? I don't think its bad genes which causes the myriad evils which result from trauma and poverty. As long as there is an incentive for people to behave in anti-social ways, people will behave in anti-social ways.
You are correct that unreasonable people can't be reasoned with. Dogs also can't be reasoned with but are not a threat to society. This is because we manage them. Trump has demonstrated that you can be a fool-whisperer like Cesar Milan is a dog-whisperer. The problem is that he uses his ability to influence fools for evil instead of good. These unreasonable fear-motivated dupes can be dealt with in ways that take advantage of their cowardice to neutralize themselves as a threat or depend on pro-social groups rather than use their cowardice to fuel despotism. The human race of which you and I are part will contain a vast array of people acting and being acted upon. We as a species can be influenced, but eugenic movements to root out undesirables have never worked.
theanarchistlibrary.org/librar…
fundamentally anarcho-transhumanism is a social libertarian position that "my body, my choice" is true about a great many things. anarcho-transhumanists celebrate scientific advancements that allow a person to alter or modify their body as they see fit.
Anarchy and Transhumanism
William Gillis Anarchy and Transhumanism 2020 Online: taylorfrancis.com. Adapted from An Anarcho-Transhumanist FAQ.The Anarchist Library
What the fuck is this? What sort of genocidal maniac are you?
This isn't anarchism, this isn't a stance informed by theory, this is toxic misanthropy.
How is "kill a third of everyone" getting any upvotes? This is disgusting, you are disgusting. Read some books you derranged maniac.
What the fuck is this? What sort of genocidal maniac are you?
This isn't anarchism, this isn't a stance informed by theory, this is toxic misanthropy.
How is "kill a third of everyone" getting any upvotes? This is disgusting, you are disgusting. Read some books you derranged maniac.
I still hold out hope that the Anarchists will stop falling for it, and unite for freedom over economics.
Instead of uniting with the Tankies, unite with the AnCaps.
"But they're not real Anarchists."
And the Tankies and Totalitarians calling themselves Communists are?
lack of a mechanism against returnung to capitalist production
Well, AnCaps are in a mechanism to return to capitalist production (and the consolidation of wealth towards corporatism, monopoly, and fascism).
So the anarchists to the left of that are doing better, even if it's true that they have no mechanism against returning to capitalist production.
The philosophy, may be sufficient, without mechanism or overly structuralist strategies. And the more everybody's empowered, the easier and more sure that may be.
Not my anarchism.
Not even anarchism.
Malarchy.
Mal,
Archy.
Probably a lot of fake anarchists paid (or duped) to give anarchism a bad name, to give people the wrong idea about what anarchism is, to turn them away from mutual freedom for each and all, back into the arms of daddy corporatarchy government.
Like that malarch in this thread, saying they wanted to kill 37% of everybody, because anarchism. `_`
Yeah. Bring on the emancipatory technologies.
All the technologies that can emancipate us, each and all.
Y'know...
All those technologies that are suppressed by capitalists to maintain their crippling extortionate rents that happen to be very polluting too.
And to, oh, y'know, undo all the McCarthyian redscare psyop that conflates anarcho-communism with totalitarian communism and presents capitalism as the system that frees them.
"Ferengi don't want to end the exploitation. They want to become the exploiters." -- Rom
Would be a lot easier once people stop falling for all the "advertising and marketing".
Or if someone just decides to provision everybody with spaceships of their own. Each capable of printing another of itself instantly, sustain life, with zero-point energy powered zero-inertia propulsion, safe enough for a 2 year old to fly home. I hear these already exist (for about a century now). Could have not just "disclosure", but radical provisioning sublimation. Do you have spaceships yet? And the reassurance everybody else does too so they're not trying to take yours?
What is the point of posting a comment to say you're disregarding an opinion.
Do you always loudly announce everyone you do something no one gives a shit about?
Yeah. Maybe should cease being played into being against each other.
Unite freedomwards.
No more falling for the terror psyop of each being out to take away your freedoms. Cui bono.
If either of them don’t do mutual aid their dead to me.
is that,
If either of them don’t do mutual, aid their dead to me.
or
If either of them don’t do mutual aid they're dead to me.
?
This is deceptive not prescriptive of how it comes about.
We don't get there by being passavists.
You're trying to make this a eugenics thing which is fucking weird. I can only assume you don't want to understand because it's nothing but strawmen.
And great example that just because you were born to riches, does not mean you have to remain an inegalitarian maintaining the power imbalance keeping the little people down.
Well done Kropotkin.
Anarchy doesn't mean passivist.
If someone wants to enslave me or anyone else without consent. Dead.
It's not a discussion. It's not like there is some gray area here. It's a violation of everyone else's freedom to consent.
Either we are all free or no one is free.
Taking someone freedoms is an assault on every other human and must be treated a such.
Yup. Sure isn't.
Easier yet, as we can (and shall) build things differently, to what the economic imbalances of industrial capitalism drew forth. And as emancipatory technologies are availed (to each and all).
"Murdering each other is against our nature"
Nope. Genocide has always been with us. Where do you think all the other types of humans went?
A stable anarchy can’t exist ~~as long as people are still thinking in terms of using each other as resources for their own interests~~.
FTFY. No point in pining for a social order fundamentally incompatible with human nature.
Many times accuracy can over come bullet size and capacity.
1 head shot can equal 10,000 rounds shot in hope.
SEE!?
Everybody? See?
The authoritarian's know what side they're on.
Time to stop falling for pitchforks vs torches. Time to stop allying ourselves with our authoritarian counterparts.
Yeah. Everyone seems to think I'm saying, I will personal murder 1/3 of all humans or that this is some ideal goal.
When instead I'm saying 1/3 of your neighbors will end up dead because they will force others to act.
The only way I see it playing out, it will be a very bloody ordeal until the idea of absolute consent is firmly established in society.
Anarchy doesn't actually preclude forms of governance. It merely insists anyone can revoke their consent to be governed at any time without providing a reason or asking permission. And that they explicitly consented; no one can be born into it. That's a detail for those governances system to figure out.
Yeah.
Giving power to the central power to help defeat capitalism.
What could go wrong.
For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
But,
internationalist.
leftists are correct, fascists are wrong. it's just a matter of accepting it. fuck their murderous perspective because it is making most of our lives objectively worse.
no sane society would even consider letting them take it to their final consequences. let's see how ours will do.
blatant force or robbery
my biggest worry is they do this a lot though and are escalating. fighting back won't be easy considering they are beefing up police and military forces around the world.
the cia has done shit like this in the past and i bet they will do it again here, but i doubt lemmy is already being intervened on just yet.
i think we are still on the passionate lib stage of things.
If you think that mutual aid is “creating alternative governance structures” then what I’m saying makes no sense. But since it does not even come close to achieving even a trillionth of the intentionality of that, one cannot use that as a calculus.
Mutual aid is just a slight protection from the ravages of capitalist tyranny, which like I said is lesser than social democratic institutions. That’s it. It’s not a bad thing, but we should stop pretending that it’s what you said it is.
conservative is an euphemism for fascist at this point. especially on 2025 political climate.
i mean... hating gays, hating leftists, hating immigrants for no good reason and wanting completely deregulated capitalism with a sprinkle of christian fundamentalism and mysogyny and so much nationalism its weird?
(I'm probably some ways wrong about this in my lingering naivety [and, so, happy (eager, even) to hear counter-arguments, refutations, educations otherwise], but...)
I see Engels as part responsible for leading Marx astray from listening to Bakunin['s warning] [1].
It's my impression that younger Marx was much more fervently libertarian along with his economics, and then later stripped the freedom to a mere wishful happenstance footnote in preference for a more purely economics focus, which opened the door to the authoritarians to usurp his work, and turn it into the whole "well then we'll make them free" and "some are more equal than others" cognitively dissonant perversion.
[1: quintessentially: "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality," -- Mikhail Bakunin]
Okay, I'll keep an eye out for that, in [>40 years of] free software, largely decentralised. [Though argue as one may, that it's born of a statist, using the state to assure the [4] freedom[s], but still in practice, it's largely decentralised.]
And I'll not cease noticing the cascade from Marx to Stalin was not just a move to more authoritarianism, but at least half as much a drift towards the economic right too.
I’m not much of a conservative, so no need to try to bait me 😂
But if that was not your intention, carry on!
There are many other ways besides becoming them.
Sure, reasonable force.
But to jump from zero to over 9000...
Always a better way.
Explore the gray area you assert is not there.
It's not a binary, of either consent or murder.
False dichotomy fallacy.
Self contradiction.
Are those you kill, free?
Or did you use your authority and violence to take away their freedom?
Maybe try educate them, plant some seeds, offer counter arguments, obsolete their foolish diminishment of potential, show them how they're depriving themselves from their attempt to enslave others.
Either we are all free or no one is free.
Agreed.
I hope I've helped show you this.
Nicer to be free from murderous authorities imposing their way.
Sure, there are worse things than death, but that does not make that lesser evil good.
As emotive an impulse, and instinct, it is, to end the enslaver, there are more ways to end the enslaavement, than just killing the enslaver. Ways that don't involve becoming a murderous tyrant.
Better the anarchy of
Either we are all free or no one is free.
than the malarchy of
"Do not appear as a slaver in my perception or I kill you."
... ironic, how that can be seen in same light as the enslaver, and make you a target for those of the same philosophy.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth making the whole world blind and toothless again.
imperialism is the defining factor imo that makes a state necessary in such a way. i attribute it to most of the successes of current and past socialist experiments in keeping themselves alive and improving people's lives in the scorched earth scenario we find ourselves in.
i don't fundamentally disagree with the anarchist critique of socialism i've been exposed to, but i'm living under imperialism and the so called authoritarians hit the nail on the head on what's needed by how things are imposed upon us and especially how our failed attempts at freedom went.
could probably better ways of putting it, but i'm way too tired right now. i hope to have articulated whatever i wanted to say in a coherent enough way.
There's a pretty big difference between free software, and running production and distribution of physical goods, as well as the geographic communalization anarchists tend to propose. It's not that all decentralization leads to capitalism, it's that decentralizing nearly everything related to production and distribution definitely can.
As for Marx to socialism as its practiced in the real world, I'm really not getting what you mean here. Marx himself was clear that the process of building communism is long and drawn-out, so existing socialist states that don't have the full characteristics of communism aren't at odds with Marx. Nor is the use of authority by the working classes against the capitalists and landlords. Marx's famous quote on the working class wielding authority against the capitalists is as follows:
We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.
i didn't intend this as bait, conservatives do build these euphemisms even for themselves. just a bit of disgust for them showing.
although liberals can lean right, if i had to guess i'd say you are more on the liberal side instead of straight up conservative or fascist.
I agree with that,
But with one exception, or, counter-point, perhaps... from "do not" to "can", if only, perhaps, fleetingly. Cant take it all back with you. Did well enough to remember that I had.
I'll depict with a (paste of a) little story:
(referring to this experience of omniscience in a trip from abstaining from magic mushrooms for 2 years, fasting for 24 hours, then mid day, on that empty stomach, consuming uncounted tens of grams of dried, freshly fine-powdered, very strong northern psilocybe semilanceata, hot, in just lemon juice, and chugging that pint of thick mushroom super-lemony brew down as fast as i could. it started coming on FAST and STRONG. ran the 3 strides to the bathroom sink with need to purge, which didnt last long nor purge much of it... clinging to the sink as i slumped down, with the trip immensity roaring at the doors bursting in at all the seams, i tried to steady myself, i meditatively focused on a drop of water, empathising with it likewise clinging to the underside of the sink. i empathised my way instantly to know where every molecule, and every atom, of the water in there, had ever been, and it was a short jump from there to realise i could do that with everything, ... and this was only in the beginning seconds of the hours long trip, the ability to see behind things, to know from every perspective, everybody, all time, all times, all dimensions all places... i cant speak to it really, only to say i remember i did experience it. cant take it all back with you. first exchange with other people after i came out of the toilet, friends had come around, one asked "how was it?", and with it all still being fresh, the immensity of having experienced omniscience, sought to offer what i thought was the most beautiful thing of it all... i said, with all glowing reverie "i know death". the look of horror on the poor dear's face though. ho ho ho. but yeah, get that... we mere mortals, many, all around, can experience omniscience. and many are. say hi.)
Civil War, Battle of Blair Mountain, Battle of Athens
Just about every union strike erupted into violence from 1870-1930
Something like that. Attempted to fucking carve a 3D printer frame out of some rotten log (I was destitute, and trying to recreate the WolfStrap).
I had no plan on how to get the metal parts.
I also (attempted) to design something that can print itself.
Now I'm trapped in an eternal cycle of work, like most people, and my next shot (if any), will be during retirement.
Definitely an interesting video, I already see where I need to go back throught and take a few more notes. I thought he put forward an interesting if a bit simplistic view of coalition building.
But it has a few problematic areas. For one, this should not be considered an even glancingly accurate depiction of Marxism. And I'm not complaining about his unwillingness to engage with any historical subjects, only theoretical ones. And I won't say that some of his criticisms might apply to certain vulgar Marxist tendencies. But as far as Marxism being out of date, he is fundamentally a pre-marxist, not a post Marxist. The fundamental insight of Marxism, that material analysis should be human-centered, conceiving of a unified subject and object rather than separate categories of analysis, is completely lost. For all his talk of "the people," any strip of humanity is sacrificed for engagement with a method. As Marx said of Feuerbach, he can conceive of "single individuals and civil society" but can't place the individual in society, nor society in the individual. His early idea that change starts with the individual is sort of correct, but he doesnt advance a step beyond this insight, and instead engages with theory instead of "the people." As such, he's an idealist, even if he is the kind to imagine a better world he won't be able to change himself or anything else.
Other limitations that I noticed, is that he spends a lot of time talking about Gramsci's theories of hegemony superficially, then spends a lot of time talking about language and post - structuralism. But the fundamental insight of Gramsci, the whole basis of his theory of hegemony is language. His theory of hegemony is based on the risorgiamento period in Italy, which allowed Gramsci to concretely develop his theory by paying close attention to the way that the Florentine dialect spread across Italy, replacing local dialects with The Florentine one, which is what we now know as the Italian language. Through analysis of the spread of language he was able to trace the spread of the ruling class superstructure, which included other things like politics, culture, and finally, power.
The fact that he avoided concrete analysis in order to talk about postmodern theories is pretty glaring imo. As an organizer I'm a bit at a loss for what to do with these theories, but like I said, I wanna go back and review. Its def a perspective I haven't heard before, and maybe if Marx's fundamental insights were included, then the method could have some practical application. But as it is described by him, I think its impractical and idealistic.
Otherwise, its a good video, very informative, but if he bothered to actually understand Marx then it could be so much better. Instead, he'll be stuck using very advanced forms of flawed bourgeois reasoning, which leads nowhere.
Thanks for the share!
The vanguard is not a different group. The vanguard is the part of the group that ends up doing something first.
It's not separate from the group, and it's often not even distinguished from the group in any way aside from the fact that it was motivated enough to act first.
That's like saying that the bourgeois are just the workers that did really well for themselves.
No, it's not. It's like saying that the leaders and organizers within the working class will lead the working class and ensure that the means of production are managed after they are seized. Someone (an individual or a group) has to do it, and they should know what they are doing.
The person I responded to said "a different group". My point is that it's a subset of the larger group. Yes, it's possible to take advantage of the situation and try to grab power afterward. If that subset seized it to enrich themselves, they are class traitors - they are of the working class but betrayed them. However, some person or group needs to literally lead and manage, usually democratically. It can't be literally the entirety of the working class.
All of this is just twisting terms and concepts to try to sow distrust in communist or socialist theory, assuming there will always be some secret group of elites scheming to take everything for themselves the moment the means are seized.
if push come to shove the working class always has the power to overthrow the vanguard. yet large populations are generally to stupid to do so due to all the propaganda and reeducation (see the USA currently). first one would need to remove capitalism from the equation, and create political education that is systemically impossible to manipulate or censor. after that the working class will gain consciousness over time.
This is wrong on two levels.
The first is in separating the vanguard from the working classes. The vanguard is a subsection of the working classes chosen by the rest of the working classes. Vanguards derive their power from the bottom-up.
The second is in assuming the working classes are stupid and easily duped. People instead license themselves to believe what they think benefits them is good. Socialist systems have always focused on education and literacy programs because a society run by the working classes works better with more informed members, but even within capitalism workers still come to understand the necessary conditions for their own liberation simply by existing within the brutally oppressive systems.
i dont think it is that wrong to seperate those 2. one could argue that by having different power than the rest all (regardless of where its coming from), it again becomes its own class.
and yes people realise themselves that capitalism is a horrendous system, yet they dont realise it enough to unite. if it was that easy to realise, we wouldnt have racism and such anymore and would have already liberated the working class. yet the class as a whole remains ignorant even if individual groups see through it all. im not saying the working class as a whole is stupid because it cant get smarter, im saying it is intentionally kept stupid and divided, and to stop that we first need to rid ourselves of the system thats responsible for that.
If you separate class from its basis in relation to the mode of production, then you are pivoting from Marxism. Class is not about "power," it's about social relations to the mode of production and how we fit into that. Plumbers and factory workers are both proletarian despite having different jobs, the same applies to administrators and managers.
Secondly, history is not a series of snapshots but instead a dialectical process. We should help accelerate class consciousness, and tackle bourgeois cultural hegemony, but we are not outside the class struggle and instead are within it.
i feel like a contrarian how much i gotta disagree in this thread.
i think it is valid to mention that one is deviating from a theory.
and i think its valid to disagree with that deviation.
And you're going to unite the working class by demanding others can't voice their opinion if it goes against the red bible?
Because that's what they are doing when they enforce purity of thought.
The vanguard is a subsection of the working classes chosen by the rest of the working class
The Vanguard chose themselves and if you don't like it, straight to Lubyanka
That is true, but it's a huge undertaking to do even once, let alone twice in 'rapid' (10-30 years) succession once it turns out the vanguards have become the oldguards.
Systemic change need to happen naturally from a grass-roots level if it is to truly last as an alternative to the status quo. It needs to be something that all people feel heard and supported in, and want to see succeed.
This is one of the beauties of anarchism in that it promotes local groups to flourish, and to make the changes they need to suitable for their needs and environs. You can start working on secondary support systems without needing to wait for the revolution.
There’s a weird misunderstanding of what a “vanguard” is, in both left anti-communist and communist circles.
A vanguard is not a self-defined group that rules over the proles and directs them towards a revolution and governs once it’s won.
Vanguards are not things that exist in the present. Vanguard is just a term to help understand a revolution after it happens.
When a revolution happens, the most politically advanced (in class consciousness and left theory) individuals and groups that participate will steer the people towards socialism. They will lead, by example, on who to fight, how and why.
During the revolution, they aren’t called anything and specially not by themselves.
But after the revolution, when analyzing it, those people are then called the vanguard of the revolution.
Any communist that says they want to “form and participate in a vanguard party” has no understanding of revolutions and left theory.
Any left anti-communist that derides vanguards for being authoritarian and “replicating state oppression” also have no understanding of revolutions or left theory.
Honestly we would all be better off just not using the term vanguard at all anymore.
Any left anti-communist that derides vanguards for being authoritarian and “replicating state oppression” also have no understanding of revolutions or left theory.
You know, you can be anti-authoritarian and still be a communist. Anarcho-Communism is a real thing.
This comes from the unfortunate viral idea that communism has stages.
Some people get really attached to this idea, and either become super against it or super for it. Then they end up wanting to either fully concentrate on “lower stage communism” and idolize militaristic aesthetics of early communist revolutions, and the perceived “toughness” and “authoritarianism” they had. In the extreme this becomes shit like the ACP.
On the other hand, others completely forgo any large scale timeline thinking, and start fantasizing and theorizing about a possible quick jump to “stateless, classless, moneyless” society (which is in itself a misinterpretation of what communism is but that’s another thing completely) in a single revolutionary moment and process.
There are no stages, communism is not total anarchy either. Communism is the means and methods the working class uses to abolish itself. This should start with a revolution, and continue until it’s finished. This process likely would take many generations. And it would be one continuous revolution. This is communism, this state of affairs. Of the long revolution of self-abolishment of the working class.
What comes AFTER, is a stateless classless moneyless society. What is dissolved first and when depends on the revolution, but it wouldn’t all be at once, or it would. Who knows.
That doesn’t happen though. What we saw were rightwing counterrevolutionaries taking over the USSR, China etc.
But historically it’s a great mischaracterization of all socialist revolutions to say they were “overtaken by authoritarians”.
All revolutions are “authoritarian”.
Any communist that says they want to “form and participate in a vanguard party” has no understanding of revolutions and left theory.
So, did Soviets get the concept wrong?
It's often claimed dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean an actual dictator, yet there it was.
What do we call the Soviet concept of vanguard if not vanguardism?
Idk man I think there’s as many people like that as “anarchists” who live under bridges and dump dive.
It’s just that libs and left anti-communists usually see any type of real actual action and revolutionary practice as “evil”.
The vanguard is just the formalized and democratized segment of the most trained professional revolutionaries in the working classes. It isn't distinct from the working class, that's like saying electricians are different from the working class. The vanguard is formalized and democratized so as to be accountable and transparent, and doesn't "rule over" the working classes but is the representative body chosen by the working classes. The vanguard doesn't sieze the means of production, the working class does, led by the vanguard they have chosen.
The working class is a spear. The vanguard is the spearhead, and the rest of the working class forms the actual mass that drives the spearhead through the capitalist machine. A spear with no spearhead isn't very effective, a spearhead without a base even less so. Together, though, they form an effective revolutionary force that can kill the most violent fascist machines.
This assumes that a vanguard is a separate class, when what it really is, is an advanced segment of the working class. That said, I wanna inject some good faith complexity here.
A Maoist critique of a a vanguard would assert that, by being the most advanced segment of the working class, a petty bourgeois element can exist within a party.
In the maoist view, since class struggle persists under socialism, that petty bourgeois element can, wittingly or otherwise, lead the socialist state back to capitalism. And as such, this needs to be struggled against.
The solution to this isn't to discard the concept of a vanguard, after all most socialist revolutions, which have seized power, have featured them.
Rather, Maoism has the concept of The Mass Line, wherein the party seeks to intimately involve itself with the masses. And the Cultural Revolution, where the class conscious masses are unleashed on the party itself, to keep it in check. Hence the Cultural Revolution slogans like, "its right to rebel" and "Bombard the headquarters"
I'm not a Maoist (I find the maoist position on AES to be lacking), but it's a tradition I have respect for. There's this big emphasis on the dialectic between top-down and bottom-up power that's really worth exploring, I think. I once heard it jokingly called "Anarcho-stalinism" and I hope you can see why lol
and of course i need to mention that the USSR was only communist in name and are nearly the worst possible example of communism….
Elmer Fud strikes again
Nearly 100 bodies recovered under Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza; UAE-backed separatists claim control of southern Yemen
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/40114112
Civil Defense teams recover 98 additional bodies of people trapped under the rubble of Al-Shifa hospital. A new report estimates the Gaza genocide has produced over 60 million tons of rubble in Gaza. Tony Blair appears to be out as the prospective head of Trump’s “Board of Peace.” The Israeli government to allocate an additional $843 million to West Bank settlements. Israeli warplanes strike southern Lebanon. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and other party members wear a noose on their lapels to signal support for legislation that would allow for lynching Palestinian prisoners. Chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance David Ellison launches a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery backed by Jared Kushner. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would force the U.S. to make up for any deficits in weapons sales caused by boycotts of Israel, Zeteo reports. The Supreme Court seems ready to green-light Trump’s firing of independent bureaucrats. President Donald Trump says the U.S. will place five percent tariffs on Mexico to rectify a water dispute. Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces seizes an oil field in west Kordofan. Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council claims control over south Yemen. Honduras AG issues a warrant for the arrest of a former President pardoned by Trump. A government airstrike in Myanmar kills 18. Fighting breaks out between former allies in eastern Congo.
Nearly 100 bodies recovered under Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza; UAE-backed separatists claim control of southern Yemen
Civil Defense teams recover 98 additional bodies of people trapped under the rubble of Al-Shifa hospital. A new report estimates the Gaza genocide has produced over 60 million tons of rubble in Gaza. Tony Blair appears to be out as the prospective head of Trump’s “Board of Peace.” The Israeli government to allocate an additional $843 million to West Bank settlements. Israeli warplanes strike southern Lebanon. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and other party members wear a noose on their lapels to signal support for legislation that would allow for lynching Palestinian prisoners. Chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance David Ellison launches a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery backed by Jared Kushner. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would force the U.S. to make up for any deficits in weapons sales caused by boycotts of Israel, Zeteo reports. The Supreme Court seems ready to green-light Trump’s firing of independent bureaucrats. President Donald Trump says the U.S. will place five percent tariffs on Mexico to rectify a water dispute. Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces seizes an oil field in west Kordofan. Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council claims control over south Yemen. Honduras AG issues a warrant for the arrest of a former President pardoned by Trump. A government airstrike in Myanmar kills 18. Fighting breaks out between former allies in eastern Congo.Nearly 100 bodies recovered under Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza; UAE-backed separatists claim control of southern Yemen
Drop Site Daily: December 9, 2025Drop Site News
DarkSirrush
in reply to wazayl • • •