Better game performance in some scenarios when running a game natively under Wayland. It helps to minimize GPU downtime when it could instead be rendering.
Tens of thousands of residents are displaced and awaiting word on whether their homes survived the flames — some of them the city's most famous denizens.
At first I was a bit turned off by news like this. Who cares? OTOH, seeing that even the wealthy can't escape these disasters says something.
Anyway, coming from the Hurricane Coast, this horrifies me like no hurricane could. We have a small house, but it's only 7yo and has strong structural elements against wind and water. I don't care how your house is made, it's going down if a blast furnace hits it.
In other news, how could you be filthy rich and life packed in like rats? If I had celebrity money, I'd be far past the edge of town.
In other news, how could you be filthy rich and life packed in like rats? If I had celebrity money, I'd be far past the edge of town.
I think there is something to be said for having a balance between having space for yourself and being around other people. Seems like the rich maintain this balance by having mansions next to each other. I don't follow celebrities but do casually follow some Twitch streamers and it seems like many of them choose to live around other people so that they aren't lonely, despite being rich enough to live in the middle of nowhere.
This is what i see when i try to shift+tab to Steam overlay while gaming. I'm on Fedora 41 with Gnome if it can help. edit: it was just a problem with nvidia drivers (not installed)
That's a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That's what History demonstrates.
Right now they're so comfortable with power and propaganda that they'd rather make fascism happen.
Violence is the only language they understand. I'm not talking about everyone here, I'm talking about the capitalist overlords. They're ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.
The person you are replying to is a Marxist, they are revolutionary but anti-adventurist. Violence is a requirement, but its form and direction makes a huge difference.
Liberalism is the ideological basis of Capitalism. When Capitalism was a progressive force, ie during the French Revolution, it was considered left wing. Now that Capitalism has become entrenched and turned to Imperialism, the progressive side is undeniably Socialism, while liberalism entrenches the status quo.
Simply saying that liberalism at one point was progressive does not mean history has not had several centuries of shifts and developments since then.
You'll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.
Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.
I don't disagree with you. I think the reason you aren't understanding what the Marxists are saying is a difference in understanding of revolution, pacifism, and adventurism.
Killing a random CEO? Will not put the working class in power. Cool move, but not going to change anything.
Organizing a revolution? Will change society, as it has done historically many times in favor of Leftists.
Revolution isn't pacifist, it's organized violence. Random assassinations aren't a part of that process.
That's not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.
But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.
I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don't think assassinating a CEO is useless. I'm not saying it's what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?
So far, the UH CEO getting got has helped confirm suspicions that the Proletariat is more radical than previously thought, but no change has come of it. Without taking advantage of the moment to organize, nothing will change from it.
I might sound like an asshole and I apologize in advance if I do because it's not about you specifically in this case but, while I'm glad that you had people in your life who were willing to consistently talk to you and help you rethink some things, the problem to me is exactly that like you said, it does not happen overnight. At all. It actually takes a long time and a lot of trust between people to achieve what was achieved with you in this particular case. And while I am certainly glad to have another ally, time is a luxury in some cases.
Using the case of Palestine, a Palestinian village getting bombed because so many liberals simply don't value their lives enough and don't pressure their officials to do something about it, doesn't have the luxury of time.
As another example, the collapse of our ecosystem is happening every single day. And while we let companies continue business as usual, those liberals think that it's a topic that can always be postponed. But it can't. And now we're past the point of no return and yet we waste time in pointless conversations tryi
... show more
I might sound like an asshole and I apologize in advance if I do because it's not about you specifically in this case but, while I'm glad that you had people in your life who were willing to consistently talk to you and help you rethink some things, the problem to me is exactly that like you said, it does not happen overnight. At all. It actually takes a long time and a lot of trust between people to achieve what was achieved with you in this particular case. And while I am certainly glad to have another ally, time is a luxury in some cases.
Using the case of Palestine, a Palestinian village getting bombed because so many liberals simply don't value their lives enough and don't pressure their officials to do something about it, doesn't have the luxury of time.
As another example, the collapse of our ecosystem is happening every single day. And while we let companies continue business as usual, those liberals think that it's a topic that can always be postponed. But it can't. And now we're past the point of no return and yet we waste time in pointless conversations trying to explain to people that what is happening, is happening.
If some people on the left are willing to and have the time to take liberals by the hand and explain to them things they could look up for themselves if only they weren't so dismissive and disinterested in the suffering of others, great. They surely have my thank. But I don't think as a general strategy makes sense to wait for such liberal people to suddenly decide that importent issues are finally important enough to them to be acted upon.
Those issues have always been important and worthwhile. Their previous lack of interest about such topics is their own failure.
Liberalism didn't exist for most of history, so trying to invoke "history" to argue that liberalism has some kind of timeless and eternal claim to being on the left is unconvincing. Yes, liberalism was the left in the eighteenth century, but we're in the twenty first century.
To be clear, fascism and anticommunism are intimately linked, and you are an anticommunist (unless you've changed stance). I maintain that Blackshirts and Reds should be necessary reading.
Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.
People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.
People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.
And the left is just lousy with them. It's been their main hurdle since time immemorial... Constant infighting and purity tests that prevent them from unifying against a common enemy.
Using the case of Palestine, a Palestinian village getting bombed because so many liberals simply don’t value their lives enough and don’t pressure their officials to do something about it, doesn’t have the luxury of time.
It's disingenuous and unhelpful to put the entirety of the blame for this on liberals... You are really letting a whole lot of awful people off the hook when you do this.
I feel like "liberal" has become the under-educated leftist's version of "everyone that disagrees with me is a fascist" meme.
I don't like progressive used that way because historically progressivism was just about an ideology that was results driven and often independent of other labels. There were progressive conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and the Nelson Rockefeller Republicans in America (though the progressive conservatives in Canada are anything but). They were fundamentally centrist liberals though, essentially a watered down evolution of the historical French radical liberalism/radical whigs. Merkel, for example, called herself a progressive and she was a Christian Democrat.
You just said leftists support some form of socialism. According to the Wikipedia page, a social democracy is a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach toward achieving limited socialism.
I'm not sure I'm politically knowledgeable to know what a liberal is
(This is a joke, and I don't need anyone to explain it to me. The thing I struggle with is discerning whether the people I'm talking to at any given point know what a liberal is)
No, not really. First of all, Wikipedia is not some holy text. Many Social Democrats consider themselves open to working towards a collectivized economy, but the facts remain that
Such a path has historically proven to be impossible
Such a definition of Socialism used on that Wikipedia page generally equates it to "Socialism is when the government does stuff."
So what is an acceptable level of socialism required for a government or ideology to be considered leftist in your view?
Also, don't you think the emphasis on public control over resources or greater economic equality in social democracies reflects some socialist principles, even if it’s not socialism in the Marxist sense?
Finally, even if social democracies don’t meet the Marxist criteria for socialism, wouldn’t you say that they represent a critique of capitalism and an attempt to address its contradictions, even if they don’t go far enough?
I have news for you. The most notorious conservatives in the last few decades (Reagan, Thatcher, Trump, to name the most significant) are all neoliberals.
Economic liberalization, according to Wikipedia, is the lessening of government regulations and restrictions in an economy in exchange for greater participation by private entities. Policies in service of this include privatization, deregulation, depoliticisation, consumer choice ("the invisible hand of the free market"), globalization (economic imperialism), free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. These policies are designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.
You might not realize it, but this encompasses the entirety of your US political options. For example, when Democrats say they want to make housing more affordable; they don't mean they want a government-driven effort to build housing, control rent prices, or win any ground back from corporat
... show more
I have news for you. The most notorious conservatives in the last few decades (Reagan, Thatcher, Trump, to name the most significant) are all neoliberals.
Economic liberalization, according to Wikipedia, is the lessening of government regulations and restrictions in an economy in exchange for greater participation by private entities. Policies in service of this include privatization, deregulation, depoliticisation, consumer choice ("the invisible hand of the free market"), globalization (economic imperialism), free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. These policies are designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.
You might not realize it, but this encompasses the entirety of your US political options. For example, when Democrats say they want to make housing more affordable; they don't mean they want a government-driven effort to build housing, control rent prices, or win any ground back from corporate landlords. They mean they want to supply tax incentives to big business and "cut red tape" by deregulating the housing industry. They talk about it differently, but at the end of the day they want and work towards the same things as Republicans, if not in a slightly less obviously fascist way.
Liberalism overall is a conservative ideology. The way american media uses these terms is completely disconnected from reality. They don't want you to understand that who you're cheering for does not represent you or further your views. They don't want you to understand what leftism is, they just want you to be afraid of it. They want you to pick a flavor of conservative and think you made progress for the social good.
I don't think it makes sense to classify Socialism as a quantitative measure, but qualitative. If you recall from Politzer's work, there's really no such thing as a "pure" system, ergo when deciding if an ideology is Capitalist or Socialist we need to see what it does and what it works towards.
Social Democracy definitely borrows from Socialism and Socialists, certainly in aesthetics and many supporters genuinely believe in Reformism as a tactic (even if I personally think it obviously disproven at this point). However, the basis of Social Democracy is in not only maintaining markets (which are found in Socialist countries as well), but Bourgeois control and the present institutions formed in Bourgeois interests, such as the US 2 party system. Without doing anything to truly assert proletarian control over the economy and leaving the Bourgeoisie uncontested besides the "democratic" institutions they set up and approve of, I don't consider it truly Socialist.
In a way. If we are being serious, all ideolo
... show more
Good questions.
I don't think it makes sense to classify Socialism as a quantitative measure, but qualitative. If you recall from Politzer's work, there's really no such thing as a "pure" system, ergo when deciding if an ideology is Capitalist or Socialist we need to see what it does and what it works towards.
Social Democracy definitely borrows from Socialism and Socialists, certainly in aesthetics and many supporters genuinely believe in Reformism as a tactic (even if I personally think it obviously disproven at this point). However, the basis of Social Democracy is in not only maintaining markets (which are found in Socialist countries as well), but Bourgeois control and the present institutions formed in Bourgeois interests, such as the US 2 party system. Without doing anything to truly assert proletarian control over the economy and leaving the Bourgeoisie uncontested besides the "democratic" institutions they set up and approve of, I don't consider it truly Socialist.
In a way. If we are being serious, all ideologies are critiques of the present system in some way, even libertarian Capitalists believe in significant critiques of modern Capitalism. What matters more is the manner and character of the changes. In Social Democracy, even if adherents think social safety nets need to be expanded, they don't typically think we should work towards collectivization and public ownership, and wish to "harness Capitalism." In addition, the Nordic Countries many seek to replicate only exist via Imperialism, they fund their social safety nets largely through massive IMF loans and other high interest rate forms of exploiting the Global South. It's like if Chase Bank were a country.
O yea I'm not worried about it, just saying I don't know what I am considered anymore. Still vote democratic for pres because my god since I've been 18 Republicans have put up straight garbage, but I've never been happy about it.
Ok, so essentially a social democracy can be considered leftist if it seeks to overthrow bourgeois hegemony and shift power dynamics in favour of the working class over time is what I'm getting from this? Everything is relative.
On your second point, i agree that bourgeois institutions remain largely intact in social democracies, but what about historical examples like Sweden in the mid-20th century, where labor movements and socialist parties significantly shifted power dynamics in favor of the working class? Couldn’t social democracy, under certain conditions, be seen as a stepping stone toward proletarian control ergo making it leftist? At least if we're going by Politzer's view that there are no pure systems.
I also agree that the Nordic model has benefited from imperialism, but this same critique could be applied to the USSR as well who engaged in exploitative practices in its s
... show more
Ok, so essentially a social democracy can be considered leftist if it seeks to overthrow bourgeois hegemony and shift power dynamics in favour of the working class over time is what I'm getting from this? Everything is relative.
On your second point, i agree that bourgeois institutions remain largely intact in social democracies, but what about historical examples like Sweden in the mid-20th century, where labor movements and socialist parties significantly shifted power dynamics in favor of the working class? Couldn’t social democracy, under certain conditions, be seen as a stepping stone toward proletarian control ergo making it leftist? At least if we're going by Politzer's view that there are no pure systems.
I also agree that the Nordic model has benefited from imperialism, but this same critique could be applied to the USSR as well who engaged in exploitative practices in its satellite states. Doesn’t this suggest that imperialism isn’t exclusive to capitalist systems, but rather a feature of powerful states under various ideologies?
Such a Social Democracy isn't Social Democracy anymore and becomes "Reformist Socialism," which is historically a failure and theoretically a failure.
Per Sweden, concessions came as a combination of strong labor organization internally, and a successful Socialist neighboring country to look towards. The ruling class made concessions, rather than risk losing control entirely. Such systems have eroded now that the USSR isn't there anymore, and to adopt Social Democratic tactics without such a neighboring Socialist State has not really worked out.
As for the USSR, it wasn't Imperialist. It did engage in widespread planning, and certain more populous regions recieved more support and development. However, this was not done for profit, and the goal remained widespread development. If you want to get into Leftist critique of Imperialism, Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism really is necessary reading to understand the basics. If you truly
... show more
Such a Social Democracy isn't Social Democracy anymore and becomes "Reformist Socialism," which is historically a failure and theoretically a failure.
Per Sweden, concessions came as a combination of strong labor organization internally, and a successful Socialist neighboring country to look towards. The ruling class made concessions, rather than risk losing control entirely. Such systems have eroded now that the USSR isn't there anymore, and to adopt Social Democratic tactics without such a neighboring Socialist State has not really worked out.
As for the USSR, it wasn't Imperialist. It did engage in widespread planning, and certain more populous regions recieved more support and development. However, this was not done for profit, and the goal remained widespread development. If you want to get into Leftist critique of Imperialism, Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism really is necessary reading to understand the basics. If you truly want to see Imperialism and how it evolved over time, a dense and academic but nonetheless fantastic resource is Hudson's Super Imperialism is great.
Not sure. I know a lot of people who believe in capitalism and maintaining it through socialistic injections, but they aren't wanting to give the means of production over to the government/people, which is l what leftist is to me.
It has troubles to get that to work, and often times higher expenses, but that's what they seem comfortable with
I think "socialistic injections" is a misnomer. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for entire economies, not parts of them. Generally, reading theory tends to help people support moving towards Socialism.
I get what you mean, but how would you describe Canada's healthcare system or veteran affairs in the U.S.?
Really the same with public schools, roads, libraries, medical coverage for the elderly, SNAP benefits.. they are all socially shared costs by the people, while existing in a capitalistic country
Alright so the term programs is the word you prefer to injections. I wasn't saying such programs make the country not capitalistic, I was just saying many people who vote democrat want capitalism with more social programs.
You may be right that if they read more theory they would be more apt to ditch capitalism, but many of them are programmed to reject any talk of other systems.
Kay this is just semantics at this point, so ultimately it's unimportant because delving this deep into it distracts from the overall conversation.
With that said, wouldn't the existence of a post office and other socialized services make the US (and basically every nation state in existence) by strict definitions, a mixed economy? Like if we had to keep to first year undergrad levels.
To be clear for the back row, being this pedantic about semantics not only distracts from the overall conversation but when made as a serious point is at best a sign of ignorance, and at worst it's an argument made in bad faith in order to move the goal post. This comment is meant as an aside. Ultimately like everything else an economy is a spectrum, and strict categories are more often than not caused by our desire to make things simple.
No economy is "pure," what determines if an economy is Capitalist or Socialist is what is primary. Trying to say that Capitalism or Socialism describes a specific section of an economy results in issues like drawing hard lines where they shouldn't and can't be drawn.
Liberalism is european in origin, as Capitalism first truly took hold there. It isn't the "modern divide" but the notion of Liberalism as a progressive motion or regressive motion.
I'm not going to address your first claim, because I'm not aware of the context surrounding how reformist socialism is "a failure".
I'll skip to your last point and just say i disagree with your framing of the way things happened under the Soviet Union and you are once again defending the Soviet Union's failed practices to protect ideological purity. Imperialism isn't only done for profit y'know.
What about cases where resource transfers or forced economic realignments harmed satellite states? For instance, East Germany was heavily exploited post-WWII to pay reparations, which stifled its recovery for years. Wouldn’t the imposition of Soviet control and extraction of resources qualify as imperialist, even if it wasn’t driven by capitalist profit motives?
What about the Hungarian Revolution in 1956? The Soviets responded with military intervention killing thousands. This doesn't seem any different from what Putin's doing with Ukraine today.
These same satellite towns were also used as buffer zones to protect against Western aggression. The result
... show more
I'm not going to address your first claim, because I'm not aware of the context surrounding how reformist socialism is "a failure".
I'll skip to your last point and just say i disagree with your framing of the way things happened under the Soviet Union and you are once again defending the Soviet Union's failed practices to protect ideological purity. Imperialism isn't only done for profit y'know.
What about cases where resource transfers or forced economic realignments harmed satellite states? For instance, East Germany was heavily exploited post-WWII to pay reparations, which stifled its recovery for years. Wouldn’t the imposition of Soviet control and extraction of resources qualify as imperialist, even if it wasn’t driven by capitalist profit motives?
What about the Hungarian Revolution in 1956? The Soviets responded with military intervention killing thousands. This doesn't seem any different from what Putin's doing with Ukraine today.
These same satellite towns were also used as buffer zones to protect against Western aggression. The result? They were dragged into Cold War conflicts they had nothing to do with.
You can provide sources or that try to explain how these actions only served to contribute to development, but that doesn't take away the practical implications of these actions. I haven't even mentioned COMECON yet. The USSR was largely imperialist.
Reformist Socialism is disproven in theory by Rosa Luxemburg in Reform or Revolution and in practice by its lack of existence anywhere. The closest was Comrade Allende's Chile, who got couped within a couple years with US support.
As for Imperialism, it's important for you to actually understand what Marxists are talking about by referencing Imperialism. Marxists maintain this definition as a valid and useful one because it explains what it is, why it exists, and how to stop it. What you describe later is not the same as this process, you fold a bunch of different subjects in in a way that adds confusion, not clarity.
For the GDR? It made contextual sense, considering the Nazis intentionally waged a war of extermination and genocide against the Soviets, who desparately needed to revover. The US took advantage of Western Europe's weaker standing to essentially fold them into a subservient status in exchange for monetary su
... show more
Reformist Socialism is disproven in theory by Rosa Luxemburg in Reform or Revolution and in practice by its lack of existence anywhere. The closest was Comrade Allende's Chile, who got couped within a couple years with US support.
As for Imperialism, it's important for you to actually understand what Marxists are talking about by referencing Imperialism. Marxists maintain this definition as a valid and useful one because it explains what it is, why it exists, and how to stop it. What you describe later is not the same as this process, you fold a bunch of different subjects in in a way that adds confusion, not clarity.
For the GDR? It made contextual sense, considering the Nazis intentionally waged a war of extermination and genocide against the Soviets, who desparately needed to revover. The US took advantage of Western Europe's weaker standing to essentially fold them into a subservient status in exchange for monetary support, while the Eastern Front saw 80% of the combat in the entirety of WWII. The scale of devastation of the Soviet Union by the Nazis cannot be understated.
For Hungary? Not sure why you are defending a US-supported fascist counterrevolution where literal Nazis were released from prison by pro-Nazi Hungarians in order to coup the Socialist system. I'll chalk it up to ignorance, as the idea of a state crushing a counterrevolution can certainly seem dystopian if you don't know who the "revolutionaries" are or what they wanted. One such leader was Béla Király, you should dig into that Wikipedia article a bit. They try to play down his support for the Nazi regime, of course, but it is what it is.
As for peripheral states being used as "buffers?" Doesn't hold water. The Cold War is a war of existence for Socialism, and destruction of Socialism for Capitalists. The Soviets repeatedly tried to deescalate, but the US pressed further and further. Listen to historian Dr. Michael Parenti's 1986 lecture on US/Soviet relations, if nothing else.
Overall, when you call the USSR "Imperialist," you do so by changing the meaning of the word, exaggerating its impact, and minimizing just how horrifying western Imperialism actually is that makes what you call "Soviet Imperialism" seem laughably kind. You distort it qualitatively and quantitatively because of what I presume to be a lack of research and an intentional desire to not research for fear of becoming sympathetic to Socialists.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Not sure why you are defending a US-supported fascist counterrevolution where literal Nazis were released from prison by pro-Nazi Hungarians
And it's this kind of one-dimensional analysis of events that keeps me from taking you guys seriously. Like ok, i guess the main goal of all those university students and workers was to put into place a pro-Nazi government rather than advocacy for political reforms and economic autonomy. Yeah bud.
The Cold War is a war of existence for Socialism, and destruction of Socialism for Capitalists.
And yet Warsaw Pact countries were not allowed to pursue independent policies, even when those policies might have strengthened socialism locally. Hmm, what was that about internationalist solidarity again?
lack of research and an intentional desire to not research for fear of becoming sympathetic to Socialists.
Again with this ad hominem. You are well aware of my willingness to acquiesce to defeat when i have been bested in a
... show more
Not sure why you are defending a US-supported fascist counterrevolution where literal Nazis were released from prison by pro-Nazi Hungarians
And it's this kind of one-dimensional analysis of events that keeps me from taking you guys seriously. Like ok, i guess the main goal of all those university students and workers was to put into place a pro-Nazi government rather than advocacy for political reforms and economic autonomy. Yeah bud.
The Cold War is a war of existence for Socialism, and destruction of Socialism for Capitalists.
And yet Warsaw Pact countries were not allowed to pursue independent policies, even when those policies might have strengthened socialism locally. Hmm, what was that about internationalist solidarity again?
lack of research and an intentional desire to not research for fear of becoming sympathetic to Socialists.
Again with this ad hominem. You are well aware of my willingness to acquiesce to defeat when i have been bested in a debate and of my willingness to research upon what i know not of. Your points aren't convincing enough and only serve to spread your propaganda in the hopes that you net some unaware working class individuals who don't know any better.
Genuine question, have you ever changed your stance on something on this platform?
It's not at all "one-dimensional." Counter-revolution frequently works by trying to organize an appearingly "leftist" revolution, but starting with US funding and fascist leadership. Genuinely, do you think the Nazi leading the anti-soviet counterrevolution had the best intentions at heart? Or that releasing Nazis from prison to help was a good thing for worker's rights? The same fascists that bound, tortured, and killed the Soviet supporters, prompting the Soviet Union to send in tanks? The same fascists that the peasantry entirely opposed? This was not a popular movement, it was an attempted fascist coup.
Yes, there were absolutely legitimate greivances with the Soviet system. To deny such would be absurd. However, this was not a legitimate revolution by any stretch.
As for the Warsaw pact countries, not sure what you mean by "not being allowed to pursue independent policies." They had local governments and their own jurisdictions.
As for your own reluctance to read anything that might change your mind, I know you read Elementary Principles of Phil
... show more
It's not at all "one-dimensional." Counter-revolution frequently works by trying to organize an appearingly "leftist" revolution, but starting with US funding and fascist leadership. Genuinely, do you think the Nazi leading the anti-soviet counterrevolution had the best intentions at heart? Or that releasing Nazis from prison to help was a good thing for worker's rights? The same fascists that bound, tortured, and killed the Soviet supporters, prompting the Soviet Union to send in tanks? The same fascists that the peasantry entirely opposed? This was not a popular movement, it was an attempted fascist coup.
Yes, there were absolutely legitimate greivances with the Soviet system. To deny such would be absurd. However, this was not a legitimate revolution by any stretch.
As for the Warsaw pact countries, not sure what you mean by "not being allowed to pursue independent policies." They had local governments and their own jurisdictions.
As for your own reluctance to read anything that might change your mind, I know you read Elementary Principles of Philosophy. That's more than most can say. However, I also know you refused to read more than a couple sentences of "Tankies" out of some objection to the monstrocity of Churchill, who had this to say of the Chinese:
I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them. I believe that as civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations. I believe in the ultimate partition of China — I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph.
And this to say of the millions of Bengalis his policies starved to death:
“I hate Indians,” he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for “breeding like rabbits.”
Or this to say of Palestinians in his support of Zionism:
I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, “The American Continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here.” They had not the right, nor had they the power.
So yes, I do believe you fear sympathy for Socialists if you reflexively defend genocidal monsters like Churchill and avert your eyes from anything that brings that to light. Hopefully those quotations were enough to get my point across, but we can certainly keep going. Churchill was a demon in flesh.
As for my views? Many times. I used to consider myself more of an Anarchist, even denouncing the USSR to an extent I recognize now as counterfactual. You can go back to my earliest comments on this account if you want and see the evolution. What changed was that I bought an eReader and started reading again, including theory and history books, and went fact checking where I could. The fact that you haven't been able to change my mind doesn't weaken my willingness to change my mind about subjects.
I have also begun adhering to the notion "no investigation, no right to speak." I simply do not share any semi-formed opinions I may have if I have not investigated them enough to be truly confident in doing so.
I'll leave you with a quote from "Tankies:"
The reason we “defend authoritarian dictators” is because we want to defend the accomplishments of really existing socialism, and other people’s false or exaggerated beliefs about those “dictators” almost always get in the way — it’s not tankies but normies [4] who commit the synecdoche of reducing all of really existing socialism to Stalin and Mao. Those accomplishments include raising standards of living, achieving unprecedented income equality, massive gains in women’s rights and the position of women vis-a-vis men, defeating the Nazis, raising life expectancy, ending illiteracy, putting an end to periodic famines, inspiring and providing material aid to decolonizing movements (e.g. Vietnam, China, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Indonesia), which scared the West into conceding civil rights and the welfare state. These were greater strides in the direction of abolishing capitalism than any other society has ever made. These are the gains that are so important to insist on, against the CIA/Trotskyist/ultraleft consensus that the Soviet Union was basically an evil empire and Stalin a deranged butcher.
As for the Warsaw pact countries, not sure what you mean by "not being allowed to pursue independent policies." They had local governments and their own jurisdictions.
Warsaw Pact countries had local governments yes, but these governments were heavily subordinated to Moscow's interests. Policies were vetoed by the USSR, and attempts at independence were met with military intervention.
I also know you refused to read more than a couple sentences of "Tankies" out of some objection to the monstrosity of Churchill,
Fwiw, i did end up reading Tankies, and i came out more unconvinced than when i went in. I'm not denying that Churchill was racist and that his colonialist and imperialist actions were harmful, but it feels like you're trying to downplay the horridness of what the Soviets did when you bring up this stuff. This just runs into whataboutism and bad faith arguments.
Yes, the accomplishments of AES are indeed worth defendin
... show more
As for the Warsaw pact countries, not sure what you mean by "not being allowed to pursue independent policies." They had local governments and their own jurisdictions.
Warsaw Pact countries had local governments yes, but these governments were heavily subordinated to Moscow's interests. Policies were vetoed by the USSR, and attempts at independence were met with military intervention.
I also know you refused to read more than a couple sentences of "Tankies" out of some objection to the monstrosity of Churchill,
Fwiw, i did end up reading Tankies, and i came out more unconvinced than when i went in. I'm not denying that Churchill was racist and that his colonialist and imperialist actions were harmful, but it feels like you're trying to downplay the horridness of what the Soviets did when you bring up this stuff. This just runs into whataboutism and bad faith arguments.
Yes, the accomplishments of AES are indeed worth defending, but dismissing all criticisms as CIA propaganda (particularly when it comes to the CCP and Xi Jinping) or Trotskyist exaggerations oversimplifies history. Yes, the USSR’s role in aiding decolonization is admirable, but they still suppressed worker uprisings in its own sphere of influence. You can't just ask me to ignore this.
Socialist systems require cohesion and centralism, efforts at decentralization result in difficulties with maintaining effective economic planning. Unlike Capitalism, where competition is the goal, in Socialism cooperation is the focus. You'll have to actually dig into what was veto'd and why.
As for Soviets vs the Western Powers, I do not wish to downplay genuine failings by the Soviets. I wish simply to contextualize what has been exaggerated or twisted by the western powers, much of whose stories you repeat back originate with Goebbels. There's a clear difference between "whataboutism" and trying to explain that your repeated condemnations of the Soviet Union are not based on fact, but distortions. These distortions lead you into logical pretzels, like calling the Hungarian fascist-led riots a "worker revolution" despite being opposed by a majority of the workers.
What I am asking you to do is make a genuine effort to dig into the facts of the situations you believe yourself familiar with. Sticking with Hungary, how much research have you done? Hav
... show more
Socialist systems require cohesion and centralism, efforts at decentralization result in difficulties with maintaining effective economic planning. Unlike Capitalism, where competition is the goal, in Socialism cooperation is the focus. You'll have to actually dig into what was veto'd and why.
As for Soviets vs the Western Powers, I do not wish to downplay genuine failings by the Soviets. I wish simply to contextualize what has been exaggerated or twisted by the western powers, much of whose stories you repeat back originate with Goebbels. There's a clear difference between "whataboutism" and trying to explain that your repeated condemnations of the Soviet Union are not based on fact, but distortions. These distortions lead you into logical pretzels, like calling the Hungarian fascist-led riots a "worker revolution" despite being opposed by a majority of the workers.
What I am asking you to do is make a genuine effort to dig into the facts of the situations you believe yourself familiar with. Sticking with Hungary, how much research have you done? Have you only looked at anticommunist sources, or also pro-communist sources? Does the revelation that the riots were led by Nazis change your opinion of the actual character of the events, or not?
There's plenty I can and do criticize about the Soviets, and other AES states. Stalin, while being a committed Socialist, absolutely made errors and blunders, same with Mao. I'd say Castro and Ho Chi Minh ended up being some of the most consistently "correct," same with Deng Xiaoping (not including Lenin because he didn't live long enough, sadly, to make major mistakes, but if I was including him he'd be at the top). However, I understand that there has been a century of misinformation of the highest degree piled onto AES states, and this misinformation campaign exists to this day against modern Socialist states like China and Cuba.
Want some advice? Check out Dessalines's Socialism FAQ, click a country you want to learn about, and try to legitimately engage with the points that interest you. Try to poke holes in the sources, or see if other sources contradict. There is a massive effort by Western countries and media to deliberately propagandize against any form of Socialist countries, so any preconcieved notions you have are likely misleading at best or outright fabrications at worst.
To leave you with an amazing quote from Dr. Michael Parenti regarding this anticommunist framework, taken from Blackshirts and Reds:
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Funny enough, Communists frequently just say "Parenti Quote" as shorthand for this, as it is that powerful and accurate.
I don't think it's a dumb rebuttal to point out that the vast majority of countries today are no longer Monarchist. Liberalism was left wing when the Bourgeoisie were a progressive force alongside the Proletariat and Peasantry against the Monarchy, now that the Bourgeoisie is in power and the Proletariat is by far the most numerous class, it isn't accurate to label liberalism as left.
I leave out "socialism" because for the vast majority of actual implementations, they have been Marxist in character, and additionally any Socialist system in my opinion would either progress to Communism or regress to Capitalism, making it kind of redundant to split from Communism.
Communism isn't a type of Socialism if we are being nitpicky, but the Mode of Production after Socialism.
Additionally, I did say it was an extreme simplification, and I meant that. I'm not diving into syndicalism, utopianism, Posadism, Maoism, Gonzaloism, Trotskyism, Hoxaism, etc because ultimately they don't need to be delved into for someone with no knowledge.
how much research have you done? Have you only looked at anticommunist sources, or also pro-communist sources? Does the revelation that the riots were led by Nazis change your opinion of the actual character of the events, or not?
As with most of my knowledge about history, it comes from Wikipedia pages and YouTube videos. Concerning whether the revelation that the riots were fascist-led has changed my opinion on the character of the events. I would say maybe a little bit. It doesn't change the fact that there were clear grievances with the system and there were many dissidents in the revolution, and maybe Nazi support was a way out for them? I don't know. However that's for me to do more research on.
On your point about misinformation, i can agree that there is some level of bias when it comes to Western reporting on AES states, but it's not so easy to recognize where the misinformation is coming from: especially when it is well known China has a habit of suppressing negative news about them. Evidenced by the Tiananmen square protests being a tab
... show more
how much research have you done? Have you only looked at anticommunist sources, or also pro-communist sources? Does the revelation that the riots were led by Nazis change your opinion of the actual character of the events, or not?
As with most of my knowledge about history, it comes from Wikipedia pages and YouTube videos. Concerning whether the revelation that the riots were fascist-led has changed my opinion on the character of the events. I would say maybe a little bit. It doesn't change the fact that there were clear grievances with the system and there were many dissidents in the revolution, and maybe Nazi support was a way out for them? I don't know. However that's for me to do more research on.
On your point about misinformation, i can agree that there is some level of bias when it comes to Western reporting on AES states, but it's not so easy to recognize where the misinformation is coming from: especially when it is well known China has a habit of suppressing negative news about them. Evidenced by the Tiananmen square protests being a taboo topic there, so it's also not clear to me where I'm supposed to be getting accurate information from if leftist sources are taking China's every word for things like the Ughyur pogroms, Tiananmen square protest, etc etc.
Well it also matters to specify what type of liberalism we're referring to right? If we're talking about classical liberalism (a k.a American libertarianism) which was the pervasive thought at the time, then that is obviously right wing. Progressivism (a.k.a American Liberalism) is more centre-left and developed more recently. Neo-liberalism is probably more right leaning than classical liberalism.
Although it probably won't matter to you because they all operate under capitalism.
Regarding Wikipedia and Youtube videos, I want to make this clear. English media is overwhelmingly Western. The biases presented in English media will inevitably rest on whatever those with the most power in the Western world want to present. Analyzing the Western world alone, that means the interests of the United States and Western Europe are dominant, and the class in power in these countries is undeniably the wealthy Capitalists, like Musk, Bezos, etc. Historically this was even worse, as media was mostly physical and an "internet" didn't exist. Much of the data on the USSR, for example, comes from this period of little fact checking and unchecked corporate dominance. These narratives get passed along uncritically today, even if they directly contradict the Soviet Archives opened in the 90s.
Today, Wikipedia and YouTube aren't scholarly sources. You have to check the sources of these sources. Many Wikipedia articles reference Robert Conquest, a crank historian disavowwed by his colleagues. That's why it's important to seek
... show more
Regarding Wikipedia and Youtube videos, I want to make this clear. English media is overwhelmingly Western. The biases presented in English media will inevitably rest on whatever those with the most power in the Western world want to present. Analyzing the Western world alone, that means the interests of the United States and Western Europe are dominant, and the class in power in these countries is undeniably the wealthy Capitalists, like Musk, Bezos, etc. Historically this was even worse, as media was mostly physical and an "internet" didn't exist. Much of the data on the USSR, for example, comes from this period of little fact checking and unchecked corporate dominance. These narratives get passed along uncritically today, even if they directly contradict the Soviet Archives opened in the 90s.
Today, Wikipedia and YouTube aren't scholarly sources. You have to check the sources of these sources. Many Wikipedia articles reference Robert Conquest, a crank historian disavowwed by his colleagues. That's why it's important to seek non-western sources to compare against, and to read scholarly sources. Without doing as such, I recommend you not believe anything about geopolitical adversaries of the US without hard evidence, and adopt the notion of "no investigation, no right to speak." Otherwise, you uncritically accept a US State Department approved narrative uncritically, such as being unaware of the Nazi involvement in the Hungarian riots, a fact deliberately hidden to push a narrative.
As for China, another example presents itself. The CPC frequently mentions the Tian'anmen Massacre under the name "June 4th incident." This is because the hundreds of deaths of protestors and lynchings of PLA officers happened outside the square. What gets censored is stuff like BBC reporting 10,000 people died on Tian'anmen Square, when there's no proof that there were any deaths on the Square itself (despite tons of evidence of deaths outside the square) and there's no proof that the total deaths were anywhere near 10,000. The source? A British Ambassador later confirmed to have abandoned the square before, and in contrast to a US ambassador who stayed saying no massacre happened on the square. Meanwhile, the CPC often references the events as the "June 4th incident," which is why little comes up when searching "Tian'anmen Square Massacre" in China. That is like searching "New York Attack" to find 9/11 information, sure you can probably find something but it will take a while.
Really, that whole exercise was to show that ultimately, you need to look at many sources. The Western media and English speaking internet will, without fail, largely allow the narrative to be dominated by that which upholds US legitimacy, even if it means changing the Quantity (many hundred deaths to 10,000) to Quality (deaths on Tian'anmen Square vs the overwhelmingly well documented deaths outside the square as the PLA advanced to the Square). Don't accept anything at face-value, try to find the bias of the author and see if they have weak points you can poke. Everyone has bias, that's why I don't hide mine. I encourage an unapologetic pursuit of truth, and encourage not sharing information you aren't sure of.
Bingo to the latter. There are nuances and differences, but at a base level they seek to conserve the present system and tweak it, not fundamentally alter it to its entirety.
These narratives get passed along uncritically today, even if they directly contradict the Soviet Archives opened in the 90s.
That's why we often don't just take the words of the CIA for instance, but we back it up with accounts from people that lived under these governments. There's a lot of interviews out there of people sharing their experiences. Sure their memory of events might not be completely accurate, but you can't just dismiss it as entirely false either.
Also your Tiananmen Square example strikes me as being a bit nitpicky. Yes, it's important to question dominant narratives, but the focus on whether deaths happened on the square itself seems overly semantic. Even if most deaths occurred outside the square, it still feels like you're/they're trying to downplay the broader violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of their dissent. Similarly, wouldn’t state-controlled narratives in China have an interest in minimizing the scale and nature of the violence to preserve legitimacy?
Further, you’re rig
... show more
These narratives get passed along uncritically today, even if they directly contradict the Soviet Archives opened in the 90s.
That's why we often don't just take the words of the CIA for instance, but we back it up with accounts from people that lived under these governments. There's a lot of interviews out there of people sharing their experiences. Sure their memory of events might not be completely accurate, but you can't just dismiss it as entirely false either.
Also your Tiananmen Square example strikes me as being a bit nitpicky. Yes, it's important to question dominant narratives, but the focus on whether deaths happened on the square itself seems overly semantic. Even if most deaths occurred outside the square, it still feels like you're/they're trying to downplay the broader violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of their dissent. Similarly, wouldn’t state-controlled narratives in China have an interest in minimizing the scale and nature of the violence to preserve legitimacy?
Further, you’re right that Wikipedia and YouTube shouldn’t be treated as definitive sources, but isn’t that why they include citations to trace information back to its origins? Let's accept that Robert Conquest’s work is controversial; dismissing all scholarship on the USSR from Western historians because of bias that may or may not be there seems like overcorrection.
Also the point you made about how all media echoes the biases of the bourgeois is kinda reductive. I agree that dominant Western narratives often align with elite interests, but doesn’t the diversity of perspectives in democratic societies complicate that? Investigative journalism, academia, and even dissenting voices within the West often challenge these narratives. Wouldn’t it be more constructive to identify when elite biases appear rather than assume all narratives are controlled?
The thing is, you don't listen to the CIA directly. You listen to the New York Times, Radio Free Asia, etc who are paid by the CIA to report in the way you do. It isn't intentional listening to the CIA, but happens regardless. Parenti's Inventing Reality is a great resource on this.
As for Tian'anmen, it isn't nitpicky at all. If we accept the common Western narrative, there were 10,000 students rolled over by tanks on the square as peaceful protestors. If we accept the PRC's narrative, there was a month long protest that eventually attracted US support, until eventually protestors lynched unarmed PLA officers, prompting sending in tanks and hundreds of deaths in total. Such a mischaracterization perists to make the US' adversaries look bad, while the thousands killed by South Korean dictators in the Gwang-Ju Massacre around the same time are unheard
... show more
The thing is, you don't listen to the CIA directly. You listen to the New York Times, Radio Free Asia, etc who are paid by the CIA to report in the way you do. It isn't intentional listening to the CIA, but happens regardless. Parenti's Inventing Reality is a great resource on this.
As for Tian'anmen, it isn't nitpicky at all. If we accept the common Western narrative, there were 10,000 students rolled over by tanks on the square as peaceful protestors. If we accept the PRC's narrative, there was a month long protest that eventually attracted US support, until eventually protestors lynched unarmed PLA officers, prompting sending in tanks and hundreds of deaths in total. Such a mischaracterization perists to make the US' adversaries look bad, while the thousands killed by South Korean dictators in the Gwang-Ju Massacre around the same time are unheard of. Why? Why this double standard? Because the US wants you to know about some things and not others.
As for dismissing all western reporting on the USSR, I don't. Blackshirts and Reds is a critical look at the USSR by an American that isn't even a Marxist, just sympathetic to working class movements.
The "diversity" in thought in Western Nations does not blunt the dominance of narrative. The fact that true information exists and is accessible, as I have been linking, does not mean that the dominant narrative isn't selected for via specific funding and popularization. Figures like Orwell and Chomsky that are aesthetically left but denounce Socialists and Socialist movements are deliberately taught in schooling because of this. Endless interviews to coopt leftist movements. Actual, genuine challenges are usually erased, like author Domenico Losurdo or Michael Parenti.
I never said that China doesn't do narrative twisting. I am telling you that by relying on YouTube and Wikipedia you are deliberately only hearing one side and can't actually know anything for certain.
Eh, I think it's kind of a stretch to say thinkers like Parenti and Losurdo are ‘erased’ Their works are widely accessible online and they have dedicated followings. I think it's less about suppression and more about a general lack of interest in radical critiques among the broader public which is why thinkers like Chomsky and Orwell are held to such a high standard as they present a sort of more close-to-home type of dissent. This can also be applied to your assumption about the dominance of a narrative. While funding plays a role, the public’s demand for certain types of stories—like conflict and sensationalism—also influences what becomes dominant. Dissenting narratives can also gain traction even if they're not beneficial to the capitalist class and resonate with the people's lived experiences - the whole Luigi Mangione saga is evidence of this.
All in all, this still doesn't address the fact that China also doesn't hesitate to tweak the narrative to suit their own agenda. Evidenced by the Uyghur pogroms in Xinjiang where the state censors r
... show more
Eh, I think it's kind of a stretch to say thinkers like Parenti and Losurdo are ‘erased’ Their works are widely accessible online and they have dedicated followings. I think it's less about suppression and more about a general lack of interest in radical critiques among the broader public which is why thinkers like Chomsky and Orwell are held to such a high standard as they present a sort of more close-to-home type of dissent. This can also be applied to your assumption about the dominance of a narrative. While funding plays a role, the public’s demand for certain types of stories—like conflict and sensationalism—also influences what becomes dominant. Dissenting narratives can also gain traction even if they're not beneficial to the capitalist class and resonate with the people's lived experiences - the whole Luigi Mangione saga is evidence of this.
All in all, this still doesn't address the fact that China also doesn't hesitate to tweak the narrative to suit their own agenda. Evidenced by the Uyghur pogroms in Xinjiang where the state censors reports of forced internment, reeducation camps, and cultural erasure, labeling them instead as ‘vocational training’ or ‘anti-terrorism efforts'. Also by efforts to control the narratives surrounding Xinjiang by enlisting the help of Chinese influencers to show Uyghurs 'thriving'. Yes, i don't doubt that Western media over-exaggerates some aspects of the situation but the Chinese government is also culpable in that they deny any wrongdoing when this isn't so.
This is why i think it is sensible to conclude that both the West and China engage in rhetoric twisting and why we should be skeptical of all governments and not just Western ones.
The person we are replying to is someone who wanted the absolute basics. Getting into the nuances of minor Syndicalist movements, the historical Utopian Socialists like Saint-Simon, or other forms really isn't relevant unless you want to dig deeper.
Historically, the 2 largest and most significant strands of Leftist thinking and practice have been Marxist and Anarchist, and there are no non-Communist Marxists. I mean this absolutely, 99.9% of existing leftism has been either Marxist or Anarchist. They don't need to understand the subtle differences in Yugoslavian Marxism or Russian or Chinese or Cuban, because they all are forms of Marxism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn't a form of Socialism.
Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn’t a form of Socialism.
Only if you define "socialism" only as "the transition period between capitalism and communism."
And I do not. Because, again, I am not a Marxist-Leninist.
And it seems like you have some all-encompassing need to label everything, but I would say many people on the left do not subscribe to an individual label like you seem to think that they do.
Socialism is generally a form of society where public ownership and collectivization is the driving force of the economy. Communism is when that process is complete. There are various different forms and characteristics Socialism takes, but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism. To call Communism a type of Socialism would be to call Capitalism a type of Feudalism, just because both have property owners, but this of course is not a good form of analysis.
I understand that you aren't a Marxist-Leninist. I am, sure, but again I made the very clear case that the overwhelming majority of Leftism worldwide and historically has fallen under the categories of Marxism, which is without fail Communist, or Anarchist. These aren't necessarily ML specific points of view, if you can point to major non-Marxist, non-Anarchist strains of Leftist practice that have any major relevance, then I can concede.
As for Leftists that don't ascribe to labels, I don't really care about what one individual is thinking, because I am not trying to
... show more
Socialism is generally a form of society where public ownership and collectivization is the driving force of the economy. Communism is when that process is complete. There are various different forms and characteristics Socialism takes, but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism. To call Communism a type of Socialism would be to call Capitalism a type of Feudalism, just because both have property owners, but this of course is not a good form of analysis.
I understand that you aren't a Marxist-Leninist. I am, sure, but again I made the very clear case that the overwhelming majority of Leftism worldwide and historically has fallen under the categories of Marxism, which is without fail Communist, or Anarchist. These aren't necessarily ML specific points of view, if you can point to major non-Marxist, non-Anarchist strains of Leftist practice that have any major relevance, then I can concede.
As for Leftists that don't ascribe to labels, I don't really care about what one individual is thinking, because I am not trying to prepare them for random internet leftist #18948 with their own specific eccentricities. I am talking in extremely broad and relevant distinctions, like what has actually existed and continues to exist.
but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism.
This is just not true... We have seen that, in practice, this does not need to be true. For example, market socialism exists. Mixed economies exist (and thrive).
I look forward to hearing why none of those pass your purity test.
"Market Socialism," if you mean the PRC's Socialist Market Economy, is founded on Marxism. They maintain that they are working towards Communism and are working with a Marxian understanding of the economy. This isn't about "purity," rather, this is Marxist and is working towards Communism, so it's a Communist ideology.
As for mixed economies, such a naming distinction is rather pointless. All economies are mixed, there exists no economy that does not have characteristics of the previous mode of production or the next. Whether a system is Capitalist or Socialist is determinate on what is primary in an economy, not what is "pure."
Further still, no system is stagnant, competition forces centralization, so Market Socialism eventually works towards either a resurgance of Capitalism or progression to Communism.
I know we are engaged in other conversation. I will read the other comment when I have time to kill.
I need to respond to the continuum idea of politics namely: capitalism -> socialism -> communism. The continuum is a creation of Lenin in State and Revolution. A similar anachronism is suggesting there is a continuum to evolution. Continuum's are silly for evolution and politics.
That's actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called "Socialism" as "lower-stage Communism." The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).
Calling it a "continuum" is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a "continuum" but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.
Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn't a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and b
... show more
That's actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called "Socialism" as "lower-stage Communism." The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).
Calling it a "continuum" is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a "continuum" but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.
Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn't a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and behaviors this prediction becomes clearer and clearer, and Marx becomes vindicated by the passage of time as we observe them coming to fruition.
Weird flex. Meeting material needs can be accomplished under different economic systems. I would say as a Liberal Capitalist you believe in a private property system where owners can take the work of others for their own benefit. I would respond, "If you don't work, you don't eat", but that applies to the capitalist owners in the same way as their workers.
The division of political ideologies into left and right derives from the French Parliament which had the monarchists on the right and the liberals on the left.
The names yes, but the basic conflict is much older, Europe itself had the Guelph-Ghibelline conflict.
Liberals of all political persuasions tend to believe in monopolies created by the state through private property rights. Owners of private property maintain a monopoly on the use of the property. There are progressive liberal arguments proposing the state can keep monopolies in check.
Elections worldwide have been pushing right. I argue monopolies have consolidated power and are better equipped to misinform and buy elections. Liberals see this system of monopoly as justified (right) or controllable (left).
Leftist propose different economic and representation systems. One such system is anarchism. As an anarchist, I favor horizontal power structures with property not directly worked by a person held in common. Elections should give way to consensus building. Heirarchies, though sometimes necessary, should be answerable to the represented people. The tools of violence should be democratized to prevent the formation of unnecessary heirarchies that would create monopolies on violence.
There are alternatives to anarchism that could be considered leftist. The Marxist
... show more
Liberals of all political persuasions tend to believe in monopolies created by the state through private property rights. Owners of private property maintain a monopoly on the use of the property. There are progressive liberal arguments proposing the state can keep monopolies in check.
Elections worldwide have been pushing right. I argue monopolies have consolidated power and are better equipped to misinform and buy elections. Liberals see this system of monopoly as justified (right) or controllable (left).
Leftist propose different economic and representation systems. One such system is anarchism. As an anarchist, I favor horizontal power structures with property not directly worked by a person held in common. Elections should give way to consensus building. Heirarchies, though sometimes necessary, should be answerable to the represented people. The tools of violence should be democratized to prevent the formation of unnecessary heirarchies that would create monopolies on violence.
There are alternatives to anarchism that could be considered leftist. The Marxist-Leninist propose other economic and representation systems. I will not represent them. There is definitely infighting amongst leftist.
That's not quite right: there's still big government and heavy regulation under liberalism, it's just focused on enclosing the Earth's Commons and enforcing a rigid system of private property. Liberals tend not realize this, in the same way a fish doesn't realize it's submerged in water.
It is, it's the UK that left (the EU, not the continent).
The Gelph-Ghibelline conflict was about secular monarchism vs religious authority. Im not sure I see the point you're making.
That the conflict between feudal lords (French aristocrats / Ghibellines) and urban merchants (Guelph burghers / French Girondists) is much older than the French Revolution. The pope and emperor were the figureheads, but the lords and merchants were the power blocs.
I hope Marx's prophecy is true. It would be nice to have stages toward communism like some sort of continuum. For the Yankees, they get fascism. Spain, Germany and Italy didn't do a socialism after their fascism. The USSR went "socialism" to fascism. China is a successful capitalist state under Deng Xiaoping. Let's keep betting that we'll progress to communism by proping up the right heirarchies.
The current reality for the USA is the concentration and merger of economic and political power. More public lands are becoming private. Labor has been told it will be made competitive again which can be assumed to mean a reduction in wages. Capital might be on-shored again? The current major lie is other countries will pay a tarrif. Workers will suffer for gains of the state. We can likely agree the state serves the capitalist under capitalism.
Won't someone think of the poor Yankees? Luigi does some propaganda of the deed and terrorises those in power. Propaganda of the deed is ineffective long term, but shakes the heirarchies tree short term. I would argue it is too loud. I
... show more
I hope Marx's prophecy is true. It would be nice to have stages toward communism like some sort of continuum. For the Yankees, they get fascism. Spain, Germany and Italy didn't do a socialism after their fascism. The USSR went "socialism" to fascism. China is a successful capitalist state under Deng Xiaoping. Let's keep betting that we'll progress to communism by proping up the right heirarchies.
The current reality for the USA is the concentration and merger of economic and political power. More public lands are becoming private. Labor has been told it will be made competitive again which can be assumed to mean a reduction in wages. Capital might be on-shored again? The current major lie is other countries will pay a tarrif. Workers will suffer for gains of the state. We can likely agree the state serves the capitalist under capitalism.
Won't someone think of the poor Yankees? Luigi does some propaganda of the deed and terrorises those in power. Propaganda of the deed is ineffective long term, but shakes the heirarchies tree short term. I would argue it is too loud. Instead, we should focus on building horizontal power.
Collectivism requires people coming together to create horizontal power. Building horizontal power is in spite of any existing vertical power. Normal economic requirements like land, labor and capital need to be acquired for the benefit of the collective.
The point is there are no stages to communism. The prophecy will not save us from heirarchical power. Extraordinary claims, like those of Smith, Marx or Lenin, require extraordinary evidence. Instead of relying on a heirarchy, which continues to fail due to centralized power, we must build communism collectively with shared hands.
Has there ever been a time in human history where we were just allowed to exist for our passions and not work for survival? Our economic system definitely has its flaws, but this meme paints with too broad strokes.
The Renaissance was a time of a vast labor shortage. This allowed workers to demand higher wages, and it also allowed leisure time to study new things and make new art.
This is true also when you have strong unions to bargain for good benefits. Still, you need to do some work, as opposed to the message of the meme "you have to pay for being alive".
Harari claims something similar in his book Sapiens, so it might not be so far fetched. However, even then people would have to pay for being alive with their work, even if it's less.
Part of the reason why the transition to agriculture was so difficult, is because that is true. Agriculture is a lot of work, and requires a lot more labor time than the hunter-gatherer mode of production.
Of course in the long run, agricultural societies end up overcoming hunter-gatherer ones, because they're able to support a much larger population.
No, because agriculture isn't about minimising labor, it's about maximising the productivity of a given field. While you can sustain more people from a smaller territory, the process necessitates a division of labor where some have to make and fix the tools or tend to the livestock while others cook, till the land or collect and sow the seeds, etc.
It had very little to do with getting an easier life and more with preventing famine by way of ensuring a surplus in foodstuffs.
If the metric is labor time per food produced, agriculture is much more efficient than hunting and gathering. But it requires a ton of startup labor, and waiting months, so it isn't as immediate.
I suppose, but since there's a much more limited supply of gatherable food, there's an upper limit on the time you can spend, and the size of community it can support.
Agriculture doesn't have that upper limit (well, arable land limit but that's still much more), plus it takes a ton of work to sow crops, irrigate water, and wait months for harvest. Much harder than just picking berries for an hour or two a day, which is why the transition to agriculture took so long even after it was discovered.
We've basically conquered scarcity at this point in history. There's really no reason people shouldn't have all their basically necessities provided today, but bcz of greedy assholes, they're always in search of more money, so we don't get that.
There's still a lot of actually important work that needs doing, like solving world hunger, poverty, and homelessness (which unfortunately most countries aren't paying people to do, except for a few), but for the most part this quote is spot on:
I reverse engineered this, by thinking about what I would do if I was in the Pokemon world, since whatever economic system Pokemon has means that 10 year olds can support themselves with hobby income while traveling the world, and basically every adult makes their living through their special interest. So now I'm working towards becoming a wetland ecologist, and it's led to uncovering tons of nostalgic memories from field trips and stuff in elementary school
If we're talking specifically about art, historically, there was the patronage system where wealthy people would pay artists that they liked to largely just spend their days painting whatever they liked. It wasn't something every artist could take advantage of (Van Gogh died a poor pauper because his paintings basically didn't sell at all until after his death, for example), but it did exist.
Also, genuine question if anybody knows, what about the philosophers of old? Did they get paid as teachers of their school of theory or something?
It's not like there was ever a time when people simply didn't work at all, but there is a large portion of the population today who don't feel like their work is anything other than busywork with no reason to it, and that makes them miserable even doing something that they love. There are people out there who love picking up garbage for a living because they know that they're doing something that makes a difference.
You don't work merely for your own survival under capitalism, most of your labor goes to supporting the capitalist class (and bombing foreigners to keep resources cheap so those capitalists can make even more money).
Half a century ago, working in a grocery store was enough to buy a home, raise a family, and put a kid through college. The job did not get less productive, if anything each worker produces more than ever with automation, but a greater share goes to the capitalist class, both through stagnant wages and increasing costs.
in capitalism I wanted to be an astronaut, but now I have a substance abuse problem and write spaghetti code for a corporate machine that would not give a shit if I dropped dead tomorrow.
My mental health increased massively when I stopped being a programmer.
I had to do neurofeedback training to reduce the beta wave amplitude if my brain. They were three standard deviations above normal even when I was having an incredibly calm day.
The neurofeedback clinician had me skip my ritalin for a few days before doing that baseline scan. The day of the scan I felt a calm like nothing I’d felt for months. Even in that state my beta waves were three standard deviations above normal.
The neurofeedback training put a stop to my panic attacks.
Anyway, beta waves are used in logical decision-making (the thing a programmer does 10,000 times per day), and they’re also used in fight or flight response. Good thing to know about how the brain works.
Luckily as a software dev I had the money for the neurofeedback. I spent about $7k on that in total, in chunks of about $1500 at a time.
Shit dude. That would financially ruin me after the first payment. (I don't get paid in dollars nor euros, but the company does.)
What job do you do now? How bad was the pay cut? (Or unexpected pay boost)
Do you still take Ritalin? I've been taking Vyvanse for a year now, switching from a Concerta generic. I'm indifferent, but the lisdexamfetamine lasts wayyy longer. Also I get this strange general sense of "something great is going to happen very soon".
Venlafaxine and Buproprion helped major with anxiety and somewhat with depression. Instead of getting anxious, I now get grumpy.
Before it was "oh shit, oh fuck", now it's "ugh shit, what fucking now"
Saw you were sitting at 0 points. Who tf downvotes someone's thoughtfully written non-hostile comments?
Btw thanks for the brain wave info. I thought that was like, hippie stuff, but no it's like, legit science.
I’m an uber driver. The pay is atrocious, but the work is super easy and I feel energized after a long shift. I may go back to tech, but in a talking job like sales or support. I’m just not built to write code all day.
I stopped taking all the stimulants at some point before being fired. Even after the panic attacks stopped, I still couldn’t get to a point where I could write code more than two hours per day. As a full-time dev I was expected to account for 9 total hours including 8 billable hours per day. It never worked out.
But I stopped taking the stimulants and discovered my productivity was just as high without them. Which with code means still pretty low. But any other kind of work I can go twelve hours without issue. I’m really productive so long as I’m not making precise and articulated decisions all day.
I’m an excellent driver, but the rules don’t change. Driving is the same set of rules every day, every road condition. There’s like maybe 150 rules to memorize and then all I have to do is implement them p
... show more
I’m an uber driver. The pay is atrocious, but the work is super easy and I feel energized after a long shift. I may go back to tech, but in a talking job like sales or support. I’m just not built to write code all day.
I stopped taking all the stimulants at some point before being fired. Even after the panic attacks stopped, I still couldn’t get to a point where I could write code more than two hours per day. As a full-time dev I was expected to account for 9 total hours including 8 billable hours per day. It never worked out.
But I stopped taking the stimulants and discovered my productivity was just as high without them. Which with code means still pretty low. But any other kind of work I can go twelve hours without issue. I’m really productive so long as I’m not making precise and articulated decisions all day.
I’m an excellent driver, but the rules don’t change. Driving is the same set of rules every day, every road condition. There’s like maybe 150 rules to memorize and then all I have to do is implement them perfectly. As an autistic I’m really fucking good at that.
Programming is like doing construction, except:
You never build the same thing twice
The tools change daily
The building code changes daily
The properties of the materials change daily
Physics changes daily
I’ve done a lot of different jobs and programming is easily the most mentally taxing. I always say if you’re doing the same thing twice as a programmer, you’re doing it wrong because you could have automated something.
I dislike how some leftists purely disregard the fact that man is designated to fight each other for survival rather than to succumb to their fantasies, makes me feel so disheartened to be a part of the idea.
‘Man’ isn’t ‘designated’ to anything. We just exist and are sentient and able to think about what we would like our lives to look like. Most people would like to live a life beyond working 40 hours a week on a job they don’t enjoy and where they have no say in anything. We have enough resources to make sure everyone has a home and food and can live a fulfilling life, if only those resources were divided in a fair way.
I bet you were very badly wrong in your comment, but I would have at least like to see it (and down vote it too if it deserved it). I don't need protection from stupid, just illegal or outright racist/offensive.
If you want to see the comment, you can see it, but if it breaks a rule it doesn't have an inherent right to be displayed alongside constructive conversation like it has the same merit.
Thanks, I didn't realize it was possible. Well, not gonna start arguing about mod policy, but I think down votes would have been just fine here. Anyway, no strong feelings in any direction here.
You and everyone else who's been ingrained with the demented idea that mankind was 'designated' to fight each other for survival can all go fight each other for your survival and leave the rest of us out of it.
Was talking to a friend about AI and job loss and eventually he says something about "those people in the past talking about reducing the population" unfortunately being possibly necessary... I think he was referring to some things written on the Georgia guidestones, but Jesus fucking Christ...
Essentially "How many people are allowed to live is entirely dependent on how much labor Mr.Money needs."
This was pretty much what set me on the path to radicalisation.
The system felt so unfair and then to learn that there were people who could do exactly this just because they were born into a family with large capital it was infuriating.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
That's why I dislike these kinds of memes that say, "Oh, I shouldn't be working all day; I should be living a life of leisure and free to create".They feel like the conservative strawman of the "lazy leftist who just envies the rich".
Living as the meme describes inherently requires the exploitation of labor. Unless a society becomes technologically advanced enough to achieve fully automated post-scarcity, meeting a person's needs still requires a certain amount of human labor. The issue under capitalism is that some people do live as the meme describes, and they do so by exploiting the labor of others through capital. As a result, the rest of us struggle even more.
Artists can seek personal fulfillment, which may indirectly contribute something of value for society, or they can directly contribute value to society by creating art for others. If this value is greater than or equal to that which is required to sustain them, then exploitation is not inherently necessary.
Every person and organization has to make their own decisions about which social platforms they will have an account on, publish their content to, engage with, and support (with use or contributions both time and financial).
There is no right answer for everyone. And, to many that run an online business, hoping to capture the attention of just enough customers to remain sustainable, perhaps […]
Don't they have paid firefighters for the rich and volunteers for everyone else? I think I remember hearing about Oprah's property being protected first when Hawaii was burning last. I would expect something similar in California. Money talks.
Alla vänsterns Youtubekanaler på ett och samma ställe. Jag har gjort så att alla (de jag hittat i alla fall) av vänsterns Youtubekanalser finns tillgängliga på ett och samma ställe. Det kräver dessutom inget direktbesök på Youtube.
I don't really have any special hate for Telegram myself, and I never saw it as a secure communication platform. I have more problem with Signal because people treat it like it's paragon of privacy and security.
I'd be curious to hear your criticisms of Signal! While I haven't seen anyone describing it as a "paragon of privacy and security" I do think it is a highly accessible SMS replacement that is also open source, end-to-end encrypted, and operated by a nonprofit.
The most obvious one that has been explained to death here is that Signal collects vast amounts of metadata. It's also a centralized service that's operated in the US, and it doesn't even make reproducible builds for the Android client.
Where did you read that they are collecting vast amounts of metadata? Not challenging your claim just that I have been trying to find more info and came up empty. Signal says "we don’t collect analytics or telemetry data" but that's about it.
You need a phone number to sign up. Phone numbers are metadata that uniquely identifies people, and this data constitutes a network of connections. If this metadata is shared with the government, then it can be trivially correlated with all the other information collected about people.
In my book a phone number is not "vast amounts of metadata" but I see your point. Again, I have never seen someone describing Signal as a “paragon of privacy and security” 9usually it's presented as an improvement over SMS) but if they do I will put on my Trilby and correct them.
It's the volumes of phone numbers collected collectively that constitute vast amounts of metadata. Meanwhile, I've seen plenty of people advocate using Signal as the best option for privacy. And any time there is a criticism of Signal then then brigades of people inexplicably appear to vigorously defend it.
What's funny is this is pretty out in the open, and ppl don't realize it. When Yasha Levine criticized signal, the president of Radio Free Asia (a US government propaganda org), sent this out, openly pushing Signal to european internet freedom communities:
Our primary interest is to make sure the extended OTF network and the Internet Freedom community are not spooked by the [Yasha Levine’s] article (no pun intended). Fortunately all the major players in the community are together in Valencia this week - and report out from there indicates they remain comfortable with OTF/RFA.
thank you for providing a concrete example of the nonsense I'm referring to. The only ones who make people less safe are the ones who blindly advocate for a platform while ignoring real and tangible problems associated with it. Signal users are a cult.
I agree it's a problem, but not for any of the reasons you listed. A phone number is not metadata, it's just data. In order to be metadata, there would have to be other information connected to that data, which there isn't (in Signal), other than the last time you connected to their server. They don't know who you talk to or when, thus no network connections.
Phone numbers are metadata, and the fact that you don't even understand this shows that you have no business making uninformed comments on this subject. Metadata is understood to be data that's associated with messages being sent, but isn't the content of the messages themselves.
In order to be metadata, there would have to be other information connected to that data, which there isn’t (in Signal), other than the last time you connected to their server. They don’t know who you talk to or when, thus no network connections.
One has to be an incredibly gullible individual to actually believe this. You have no way to audit the server, and security cannot be based on trust. If a company has a way to store and use the information it collects it has to be assumed that it is doing so. Signal is very obviously in a position to do this. Once the phone number is collected, it's associated with your account. Any time you send a message through signal to another account that's a connection in the graph of your social network.
Anybody with
... show more
Phone numbers are metadata, and the fact that you don't even understand this shows that you have no business making uninformed comments on this subject. Metadata is understood to be data that's associated with messages being sent, but isn't the content of the messages themselves.
In order to be metadata, there would have to be other information connected to that data, which there isn’t (in Signal), other than the last time you connected to their server. They don’t know who you talk to or when, thus no network connections.
One has to be an incredibly gullible individual to actually believe this. You have no way to audit the server, and security cannot be based on trust. If a company has a way to store and use the information it collects it has to be assumed that it is doing so. Signal is very obviously in a position to do this. Once the phone number is collected, it's associated with your account. Any time you send a message through signal to another account that's a connection in the graph of your social network.
Anybody with a functioning brain can understand that this graph is highly valuable to intelligence agencies in the US. If they have a person of interest and they know their identity, they can trivially use the metadata collected by Signal to see whom this person wants to have private conversations with.
Ignorant people such as yourself confidently speaking on subjects they don't understand present a public danger to society.
Metadata is understood to be data that's associated with messages being sent
That's incorrect. Metadata is literally "data about the data". There is not data associated with the phone number (data). The fact that you don't even understand this shows that you have no business making uninformed comments on this subject.
One has to be an incredibly gullible individual to actually believe this.
No, one just needs a rudimentary understanding of how encryption works. Actually looking at the subpoenas sent from Signal is helpful, though.
Anybody with a functioning brain can understand that this graph is highly valuable to intelligence agencies in the US
Anybody who actually pays attention can see that there is no graph. A graph has interconnected points. There are no connections in Signal.
Your entire argument is based on wild hypotheticals and conspiracy theories and you have zero evidence of anything nefarious, or you would have provided it already.
That’s incorrect. Metadata is literally “data about the data”.
Yes, the phone number is data about the user sending the message. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to explain this to you.
No, one just needs a rudimentary understanding of how encryption works. Actually looking at the subpoenas sent from Signal is helpful, though.
This has nothing to do with encryption. The phone number is being handed over by the user to the server. You're making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate here.
Anybody who actually pays attention can see that there is no graph. A graph has interconnected points. There are no connections in Signal.
Signal server has to keep a graph of connections between the accounts in order to route messages between them. The messages are not delivered peer to peer.
Your entire argument is based on wild hypotheticals and conspiracy theories and you have zero evide
... show more
That’s incorrect. Metadata is literally “data about the data”.
Yes, the phone number is data about the user sending the message. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to explain this to you.
No, one just needs a rudimentary understanding of how encryption works. Actually looking at the subpoenas sent from Signal is helpful, though.
This has nothing to do with encryption. The phone number is being handed over by the user to the server. You're making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate here.
Anybody who actually pays attention can see that there is no graph. A graph has interconnected points. There are no connections in Signal.
Signal server has to keep a graph of connections between the accounts in order to route messages between them. The messages are not delivered peer to peer.
Your entire argument is based on wild hypotheticals and conspiracy theories and you have zero evidence of anything nefarious, or you would have provided it already.
No, my entire argument is based on basic security practices that anybody who's ever dealt with security would understand. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
the phone number is data about the user sending the message
No it isn't. If someone gets information associated with that phone number, they get it from somewhere else, not Signal. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to explain this to you.
Signal server has to keep a graph of connections between the accounts in order to route messages between them.
No it doesn't. You're making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate here.
No, my entire argument is based on basic security practices that anybody who's ever dealt with security would understand.
If someone gets information associated with that phone number, they get it from somewhere else, not Signal.
Unless you're in a position to audit what the Signal server does with that data, which you're not, then you're just spewing nonsense here. You do not know what the server does with the information it collects.
No it doesn’t. You’re making it very clear that have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
You are in no position to make that claim because you do not know what the server is doing with that data. The fact that you keep repeating this nonsense over and over isn't going to make it true baby Goebbels.
No it isn’t. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
The fact that you don't understand that security isn't based on trust, clearly shows who's actually embarrassing themselves.
Unless you're in a position to audit what the Signal server does with that data, which you're not
I don't have to be. Lots of people, public and private, who are far more knowledgeable than me, already have. You're assuming they're doing something nefarious but you have zero evidence to back that up. You're just spewing nonsense here. The fact that you keep repeating this nonsense over and over isn't going to make it true baby Goebbels.
The fact that you don't understand there is no trust, clearly shows who's actually embarrassing themselves.
I don’t have to be. Lots of people, public and private, who are far more knowledgeable than me, already have.
Literally nobody outside Whisper has access to the server, and therefore nobody outside Whisper knows what the server does. The fact that you don't understand this basic fact is frankly embarrassing.
You’re assuming they’re doing something nefarious but you have zero evidence to back that up.
As I've repeatedly explained to you in this thread, security cannot be based on trust. If data is available to an attacker then the system has to be assumed to be compromised. If you understood first thing about security you'd understand that this is a fundamental point.
The fact that you just keep regurgitating back what I write to you shows that you have all the intellectual capacity of a chat bot.
The short version is, that it's a centralized, US hosted service. All of those are subject to National Security Letters, and so are inherently compromised. Even if we accept that the message content is secure, then signal's reliance on phone numbers (and in the US, a phone number is connected to your real identity and even current address), means that the US government has social connection graphs: everyone who uses signal, who they talk to, and when.
Building on this, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on GrapheneOS as a whole. The OS recently bundled a new app "store"/repository, "Accrescent”, along with the usual basic apps like a calculator & camera. On Accrescent, the hardened fork of Signal, Molly, is offered on there. I've alsoheard one of the Graphene devs has voiced some chuddy politics.
I've still installed & use Molly to chat with my closest friends who I was able to get off of big tech platforms previously used for our group chats, but I have been aware of the RFA/Signal connection for several years (your blog post really ties it together) & I do try to remind these friends about it. Really we just use Signal to shitpost and organize hangouts, so I'm not yet locking myself in a bunker over using it for those purposes, but all this has got me considering building a server & hosting a different secure chat service on it.
I learned about possible Unit 8200 connections with the Matrix protocol within the past year or two, but don't recall exactly what that entails. I haven't heard muc
... show more
Building on this, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on GrapheneOS as a whole. The OS recently bundled a new app "store"/repository, "Accrescent”, along with the usual basic apps like a calculator & camera. On Accrescent, the hardened fork of Signal, Molly, is offered on there. I've alsoheard one of the Graphene devs has voiced some chuddy politics.
I've still installed & use Molly to chat with my closest friends who I was able to get off of big tech platforms previously used for our group chats, but I have been aware of the RFA/Signal connection for several years (your blog post really ties it together) & I do try to remind these friends about it. Really we just use Signal to shitpost and organize hangouts, so I'm not yet locking myself in a bunker over using it for those purposes, but all this has got me considering building a server & hosting a different secure chat service on it.
I learned about possible Unit 8200 connections with the Matrix protocol within the past year or two, but don't recall exactly what that entails. I haven't heard much about Briar, but it being android only would make it a harder sell for getting people to switch over to it, so I suppose that leaves simpleX to proselytize.
I don't know enough about grapeneOS to comment on it.
Any signal app forks still have to use signals main servers, so they still got your phone number and identity.
Matrix was originally funded by an Israeli company until it spun off, but unlike signal, it's entirely open source, self-hostable, and can be run in a private manner. Phone numbers and identifiers are not required, so even if you connect to a malicious server, the most they get is your matrix id, and things you've explicitly leaked about your identity.
The most we could say is that specific servers are compromised, but its also possible to host it outside a five-eyes country, unlike signal.
Man I don't even have the time to break down all these very clearly wrong insinuations. There's no reason to believe Signal collects metadata, and every reason to believe they don't. They've been served subpoenas and they shared them, as well as their responses, publicly, and the only thing they included was when the last time the user connected to their server.
Security cannot be based on trust. Period. If an actor is in a position to collect data then it must be assumed that they do so. You either do not understand the subject you're opining on, or you're intentionally spreading misinformation here.
It is not based on trust. It's called "zero knowledge encryption" for a reason. You don't have to trust them, because you give them nothing to trust them with.
Except that it is based on trust because you have to use your phone number to create the account, and you have to trust the company operating the server in regards on how that information is used. What part of this are you struggling to understand specifically?
The part that this is a false statement that you keep repeating. The phone number is associated with your account, that's why it's required to make the account.
The phone number is not associated with your account, it IS your account. In order for there to be metadata, there would have to be other data associated with it, which we've already established that there is not.
Your phone number is an identifying piece of information about the person who is sending and receiving messages. That's what metadata is. The content of the message is the data, the identifying information is metadata. Maybe spend a bit of time actually learning about the subject instead of trolling here.
Your phone number is an identifying piece of information about the person who is sending and receiving messages. That's what metadata is.
It's not. And I'm tired of repeating myself.
The content of the message is the data, the identifying information is metadata
Once again, no one has access to the content of the messages. Ergo, there is no metadata. Maybe spend a bit of time actually learning about the subject instead of trolling here.
Yes, you continue repeating a demonstrably false statement. A very astute observation on your part.
Once again, no one has access to the content of the messages. Ergo, there is no metadata. Maybe spend a bit of time actually learning about the subject instead of trolling here.
Once again, nobody is talking about content of the messages. What's being said is that the identifying information about people sending and receiving messages is available to the server routing them. The fact that you continue ignoring this basic fact clearly shows that you're the one who's doing the trolling.
Okay, you've sufficiently demonstrated not only that you don't know what you're talking about but also that you have no evidence to back it up and your only recourse is repetition and personal insults so I'm gonna call it a night.
The only one making claims without evidence here is you bud. What I said is that Signal requires users to submit their phone numbers, and that only people operating the server know how that information is handled. These are objective facts.
You made a baseless claim that Signal does not retain the phone numbers or use them to build graphs of users. This is a claim that cannot be proven, and you keep repeating it as fact. Either you are clueless or you're intentionally spreading misinformation.
A phone number is tied to your real identity in most countries, especially the US. This is why phone number leaks are so dangerous, I can probably find your current and past addresses, friends, family, social media, all with just your phone number.
Yes, your phone number is tied to your identity but it's completely useless without any additional information. Your phone number is not supposed to be a secret. Every chat platform has some sort of unique identifier, other than SimpleX.
That doesn't make much sense. With a single piece of info, your phone number, I can learn hundreds of things about you. It's one of the most linkable identifiers out there.
Every chat platform has some sort of unique identifier, other than SimpleX.
Of course, which is why its super-important that the id not be linked to your real identity.
Here's a test: I'll give you my matrix id, and you give me your phone number. Deal?
They still require a phone number to sign up, and its a US domiciled company (5-eyes country), so its inherently unsafe. The obama administration issued an average of 60 national security letters every single day of his administration.
If your answer is "I don't think signal is giving my phone number to the US government", then why do you have to "trust" signal to not do that? Actually private chat apps don't ask for identifying information like phone numbers, then say "trust us", like apple or something.
Yes, that is well documented at this point. What I'm waiting for you to explain is how this compromises your privacy or security.
and its a US domiciled company (5-eyes country), so its inherently unsafe
The 5 eyes is an international data-sharing agreement. They cannot share what they do not have. So no, it's not.
The obama administration issued an average of 60 national security letters every single day of his administration.
I don't doubt it. Those NSLs would have returned zero information from Signal because, as Signal has repeatedly demonstrated, and I have repeatedly stated, they don't have any information to share.
then why do you have to "trust" signal to not do that?
I don't have to. As I've explained several times now, there is nothing to trust them with. I give them a phone number. I give them zero information along with it. Not my name, email, birthdate, nothing.
If you have any
... show more
They still require a phone number to sign up
Yes, that is well documented at this point. What I'm waiting for you to explain is how this compromises your privacy or security.
and its a US domiciled company (5-eyes country), so its inherently unsafe
The 5 eyes is an international data-sharing agreement. They cannot share what they do not have. So no, it's not.
The obama administration issued an average of 60 national security letters every single day of his administration.
I don't doubt it. Those NSLs would have returned zero information from Signal because, as Signal has repeatedly demonstrated, and I have repeatedly stated, they don't have any information to share.
then why do you have to "trust" signal to not do that?
I don't have to. As I've explained several times now, there is nothing to trust them with. I give them a phone number. I give them zero information along with it. Not my name, email, birthdate, nothing.
If you have any actual evidence to share, or any kind of argument I haven't already debunked I'm all ears, but it sounds like your entire argument is predicated on conspiracy theory, which I'm not interested in entertaining further.
I don’t doubt it. Those NSLs would have returned zero information from Signal because, as Signal has repeatedly demonstrated, and I have repeatedly stated, they don’t have any information to share.
Part of the stipulation of NSL's, is that its illegal to disclose that you've been issued one. You are gagged, and you can't even criticize that gagging publicly, or you will face criminal charges. You can read more about that here: eff.org/issues/national-securi…
Not my name, email, birthdate, nothing.
Your phone number is already linked to all that info. I, even as a private person, could type in your phone number right now and get all that information about you in seconds. So you can stop saying "my phone number doesn't have that information", because it 100% does. And signal stores it as their primary identifier.
Again, if you really believe what you're
... show more
I don’t doubt it. Those NSLs would have returned zero information from Signal because, as Signal has repeatedly demonstrated, and I have repeatedly stated, they don’t have any information to share.
Part of the stipulation of NSL's, is that its illegal to disclose that you've been issued one. You are gagged, and you can't even criticize that gagging publicly, or you will face criminal charges. You can read more about that here: eff.org/issues/national-securi…
Not my name, email, birthdate, nothing.
Your phone number is already linked to all that info. I, even as a private person, could type in your phone number right now and get all that information about you in seconds. So you can stop saying "my phone number doesn't have that information", because it 100% does. And signal stores it as their primary identifier.
Again, if you really believe what you're saying, you'll give me your phone number, and the phone numbers of your friends. If this is a secure identifier, that contains none of the information above, then why not? Put up or shut up.
Since the first national security letter (NSL) statute was passed in 1986 and then dramatically expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of such letters seeking the private telecommunications and financial records …
Unless you compiled the app yourself from source code that you understand, you don’t really know what the app might be saying to Signal’s servers. Almost everyone just trusts that the pre-compiled app supplied by Apple or Google aren’t compromised. But we know from history that Big Tech and the military-intelligence-industrial complex are in bed with each other.
That's nonsense, because many different people read the source and audit open source software. While it's certainly possible to sneak malicious code in, the trust doesn't depend on each single individual auditing it. It's a collective effort.
As of our latest Android release, Signal builds are reproducible. Reproducible builds help to verify that the source code in our GitHub repository is the exact source code used to build the compiled Signal APK being distributed through Google Play.
You sign up to use Signal using your phone number which is a personally identifying piece of information. Signal clients send messages to the server that routes the messages to their destination. It is not a p2p system where clients talk directly to each other. Therefore, the server must know both the sending and receiving accounts for the messages it routes, and it has the phone numbers associated with this accounts. All these things together make it trivial for the server to know which phone numbers talk to each other.
but also perhaps more academically because signal (i believe) doesn’t do this, so it’s more a comment on the information that the server “must know”
signal uses the double ratchet protocol to derive shared keys between users already. if we extend this a little further to exchange a separate shared identifier for use in retrieving conversaiton data, and a place to store that data the the only information that the server gets is a couple of initialisation messages, and the rest is entirely opaque - there’s no way to know (other than tracing e2e messages based on IP address, and there are mitigations for that too) who is communicating with who, at what rate, etc
there are other ways to validate things like rate limits, etc that don’t involve identity directly, or at least don’t trust any single party with all data
In addition to the end-to-end encryption that protects every Signal message, the Signal service is designed to minimize the data that is retained about Signal users.
If you're arguing that it is possible to build a system that uses a server for routing while keeping clients anonymous, then that is the case. However, what we're talking about here is whether a malicious actor would be able to intentionally harvest metadata about the users. And my point was that since only the people operating the Signal server know what it's actually doing, it becomes a trust based system. You have to trust that Whisper Systems is a good actor and they're not harvesting your information.
Many Signal alternatives also have security issues of their own, often making them less secure than Signal. This includes Matrix and XMPP. In the blog post regarding XMPP+OMEMO, the author replies to a question about which would be better than Signal, Matrix, and XMPP with this suggestion:
Anyone who cares about metadata resistance should look at Cwtch, Ricochet, or any other Tor-based solution. Not a mobile app. Not XMPP. Not Matrix.
In regards to Ricochet, not having a mobile app version makes it difficult to recommend to less tech savvy people.
XMPP is a messaging protocol (among other things) that needs no introduction to any technical audience. Its various implementations have proliferated through technical communities for decades. Many…
Many Signal alternatives also have security issues of their own, often making them less secure than Signal. This includes Matrix and XMPP. In the blog post regarding XMPP+OMEMO, the author replies to a question about which would be better than Signal, Matrix, and XMPP with this suggestion:
Anyone who cares about metadata resistance should look at Cwtch, Ricochet, or any other Tor-based solution. Not a mobile app. Not XMPP. Not Matrix.
In regards to Ricochet, not having a mobile app version makes it difficult to recommend to less tech savvy people.
I don’t consider myself exceptional in any regard, but I stumbled upon a few cryptography vulnerabilities in Matrix’s Olm library with so little effort that it was nearly accidental.
It should not be this easy to find these kind of issues in any product people purportedly rely on for private messaging, which many people evangelize incorrectly as a Signal alternative.
Later, I thought I identified an additional vulnerability that would have been much worse, but I was wrong about that one. For the sake of transparency and humility, I’ll also describe that in detail.
Many people have, over the years, assumed the opposite and commented accordingly. The ensuing message board threads are usually is a waste of time and energy for everyone involved. So please adjust your expectations.
2024-05-15: I took a quick look at the Matrix source code. I identified two issues and emailed them to their security@ email address. In my email, I specify that I plan to disclose my findings publicly in 90 days (i.e. on August 14), in adherence with industry best practices for coordinated disclosure, unless they request an extension in writing.
2024-05-16: I checked something else on a whim and find a third issue, which I also email to their security@ email address.
2024-05-17: Matrix security team confirms receipt of my reports.
2024-05-17: I follow up with a suspected fourth finding–the most critical of them all. They point out that it is not actually an issue, because I overlooked an important detail in how the code is architected. Mea culpa!
2024-05-18: A friend discloses a separate finding with Matrix’s protocol. (Will update this to link to their write-up once it’s public.) They instructed the Matrix developers to consult with me if they needed cryptography guidance. I never heard from them on this externally reported issue.
2024-07-12: I shared this blog post draft with the Matrix security team while reminding them of the public disclosure date.
2024-07-31: Matrix pushes a commit that announces that libolm is deprecated.
2024-07-31: I email the Matrix security team asking if they plan to fix the reported issues (and if not, if there’s any other reason I should withhold publication).
2024-07-31: Matrix confirms they will not fix these issues (due to its now deprecated status), but ask that I withhold publication until the 14th as originally discussed.
2024-08-14: This blog post is publicly disclosed to the Internet.
As of 2009, you could remotely detect a timing difference of about 15 nanosecond over the Internet with under 50,000 samples. Side-channel exploits are generally statistical in nature, so such a sample size is generally not a significant mitigation.
How is this code actually vulnerable?
In the above code snippet, the vulnerability occurs in aes_sbox[/* ... */][/* ... */].
Due to the details of how the AES block cipher works, the input variable (word) is a sensitive value.
Software written this way allows attackers to detect whether or not a specific value was present in one of the processor’s caches.
To state the obvious: Cache hits are faster than cache misses. This creates an observable timing difference.
Such a timing leak allows the attacker to learn the value that was actually stored in said cache. You can directly learn this from other processes on the same hardware, but it’s also observable over the Internet (with some jitter) through the normal operation of vulnerable software.
The correct way to solve this problem is to use hardware accelerated AES, which uses distinct processor features to implement the AES round function and side-steps any cache-timing shenanigans with the S-box.
Not only is this more secure, but it’s faster and uses less energy too!
Signature malleability usually isn’t a big deal for most protocols, until suddenly you discover a use case where it is. If it matters, that usually that means you’re doing something with cryptocurrency.
Briefly, if your signatures are malleable, that means you can take an existing valid signature for a given message and public key, and generate a second valid signature for the same message. The utility of this flexibility is limited, and the impact depends a lot on how you’re using signatures and what properties you hope to get out of them.
For ECDSA, this means that for a given signature , a second signature is also possible (where is the order of the elliptic curve group you’re working with).
Matrix uses Ed25519, whose malleability is demonstrated between and .
This is trivially possible because S is implicitly reduced modulo the order of the curve, , which is a 253-bit number (0x1000000000000000000000000000000014def9dea2f79cd65812631a5cf5d3ed) and S is encoded as a 256-bit number.
The Ed25519 library used within Olm does not ensure that , thus signatures are malleable. You can verify this yourself by looking at the Ed25519 verification code.
Any C library that handles base64 codecs for private key material should use a similar implementation. It’s fine to have a faster base64 implementation for non-secret data.
Most Matrix clients that still depended on libolm should treat this blog as public 0day, unless the Matrix security team already notified you about these issues.
Background Information
If you’re curious about the backstory and context of these findings, read on.
Otherwise, feel free to skip this section. It’s not pertinent to most audiences. The people that need to read it already know who they are.
End-to-end encryption is one of the topics within cryptography that I find myself often writing about.
Earlier this year, the Telegram CEO started fearmongering about Signal with assistance from Elon Musk, so I wrote a blog post urging the furry fandom to move away from Telegram and start using Signal more. As I had demonstrated years prior, I was familiar with Signal’s code and felt it was a good recommendation for security purposes (even if its user experience needs significant work).
I thought that would be a nice, self-contained blog post. Some might listen, most would ignore it, but I could move on with my life.
An overwhelming number of people took it upon themselves to recommend or inquire about Matrix, which prompted me to hastily scribble down my opinion on Matrix so that I might copy/paste a link around and save myself a lot of headache.
Just when I thought the firehose was manageable and I could move onto other topics, one of the Matrix developers responded to my opinion post.
Thus, I decided to briefly look at their source code and see if any major or obvious cryptography issues would fall out of a shallow visual scan.
Since you’re reading this post, you already know how that ended.
The bugs described above are the sort of thing I mentally scan for when I first look at a project just to get a feel for the maturity of the codebase. I do this with the expectation (hope, really) of not finding anything at all.
(If you want two specific projects that I’ve subjected to a similar treatment, and failed to discover anything interesting in: Signal and WireGuard. These two set the bar for cryptographic designs.)
It’s absolutely bonkers that an AES cache timing vulnerability was present in their code in 2024.
It’s even worse when you remember that I was inundated with Matrix evangelism in response to recommending furries use Signal.
I’m a little outraged because of how irresponsible this is, in context.
It’s so bad that I didn’t even need to clone their git repository, let alone run basic static analysis tools locally.
So if you take nothing else away from this blog post, let it be this:
There is roughly a 0% chance that I got extremely lucky in my mental grep and found the only cryptography implementation flaws in their source code. I barely tried at all and found these issues.
I would bet money on there being more bugs or design flaws that I didn’t find, because this discovery was the result of an extremely half-assed effort to blow off steam.
Wasn’t libolm deprecated in May 2022?
The Matrix developers like to insist that their new Rust hotness “vodozemac” is what people should be using today.
I haven’t looked at vodozemac at all, but let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that its cryptography is actually secure.
(This is very likely if they turn out to be using RustCrypto for their primitives, but I don’t have the time or energy for that nerd snipe, so I’m not going to look. Least Authority did audit their Rust library, for what it’s worth, and Least Authority isn’t clownshoes.)
It’s been more than 2 years since they released vodozemac. What does the ecosystem penetration for this new library look like, in practice?
A quick survey of the various Matrix clients on GitHub says that libolm is still the most widely used cryptography implementation in the Matrix ecosystem (as of this writing):
2 of the 16 clients surveyed use the new vodozemac library. 11 still use libolm, and 3 don’t appear to implement end-to-end encryption at all.
If we only focus on clients that support E2EE, vodozemac has successfully been adopted by 15% of the open source Matrix clients on GitHub.
I deliberately excluded any repositories that were archived or clearly marked as “old” or “legacy” software, because including those would artificially inflate the representation of libolm. It would make for a more compelling narrative to do so, but I’m not trying to be persuasive here.
Deprecation policies are a beautiful lie. The impact of a vulnerability in Olm or Megolm is still far-reaching, and should be taken seriously by the Matrix community.
Worth calling out: this quick survey, which is based on a GitHub Topic, certainly misses other implementations. Both FluffyChat and Cinny, which were not tagged with this GitHub Topic, depend a language-specific Olm binding.
These bindings in turn wrap libolm rather than the Rust replacement, vodozemac.
But the official clients…
I thought the whole point of choosing Matrix over something like Signal is to be federated, and run your own third-party clients?
If we’re going to insist that everyone should be using Element if they want to be secure, that defeats the entire marketing point about third-party clients that Matrix evangelists cite when they decry Signal’s centralization.
As I mentioned in the timeline at the top, I thought I found a fourth issue with Matrix’s codebase. Had I been correct, this would have been a critical severity finding that the entire Matrix ecosystem would need to melt down to remediate.
Fortunately for everyone, I made a mistake, and there is no fourth vulnerability after all.
However, I thought it would be interesting to write about what I thought I found, the impact it would have had if it were real, and why I believed it to be an issue.
The highlighted segment is doing pointer arithmetic. This means it’s reading 32 bytes, starting from the 32nd byte in private_key.
What’s actually happening here is: private_key is the SHA512 hash of a 256-bit seed. If you look at the function prototype, you’ll notice that public_key is a separate input.
Virtually every other Ed25519 implementation I’ve ever looked at before expected users to provide a 32 byte seed followed by the public key as a single input.
This led me to believe that this private_key + 32 pointer arithmetic was actually using the public key for calculating r.
The variable r (not to be confused with big R) generated via the first SHA512 is the nonce for a given signature, it must remain secret for Ed25519 to remain secure.
If r is known to an attacker, you can do some arithmetic to recover the secret key from a single signature.
Because I had mistakenly believed that r was calculated from the SHA512 of only public inputs (the public key and message), which I must emphasize isn’t correct, I had falsely concluded that any previously intercepted signature could be used to steal user’s private keys.
But because private_key was actually the full SHA512 hash of the seed, rather than the seed concatenated with the public key, this pointer arithmetic did NOT use the public key for the calculation of r, so this vulnerability does not exist.
If the code did what I thought it did, however, this would have been a complete fucking disaster for the Matrix ecosystem. Any previously intercepted message would have allowed an attacker to recover a user’s secret key and impersonate them. It wouldn’t be enough to fix the code; every key in the ecosystem would need to be revoked and rotated.
Whew!
I’m happy to be wrong about this one, because that outcome is a headache nobody wants.
So no action is needed, right?
Well, maybe.
Matrix’s library was not vulnerable, but I honestly wouldn’t put it past software developers at large to somehow, somewhere, use the public key (rather than a secret value) to calculate the EdDSA signature nonces as described in the previous section.
To that end, I would like to propose a test vector be added to the Wycheproof test suite to catch any EdDSA implementation that misuses the public key in this way.
Then, if someone else screws up their Ed25519 implementation in the exact way I thought Matrix was, the Wycheproof tests will catch it.
For example, here’s a vulnerable test input for Ed25519:
A similar test vector would also be worth creating for Ed448, but the only real users of Ed448 were the authors of the xz backdoor, so I didn’t bother with that.
(None of the Project Wycheproof maintainers knew this suggestion is coming, by the way, because I was respecting the terms of the coordinated disclosure.)
Closing Thoughts
Despite finding cryptography implementation flaws in Matric’s Olm library, my personal opinion on Matrix remains largely unchanged from 2022. I had already assumed it would not meet my bar for security.
Cryptography engineering is difficult because the vulnerabilities you’re usually dealing with are extremely subtle. (Here’s an unrelated example if you’re not convinced of this general observation.) As SwiftOnSecurity once wrote:
The people that developed Olm and Megolm has not proven themselves ready to build a Signal competitor. In balance, most teams are not qualified to do so.
I really wish the Matrix evangelists would accept this and stop trying to cram Matrix down other people’s throats when they’re talking about problems with other platforms entirely.
More important for the communities of messaging apps:
You don’t need to be a Signal competitor. Having E2EE is a good thing on its own merits, and really should be table stakes for any social application in 2024.
My work-in-progress proposal to bring end-to-end encryption to the Fediverse doesn’t aim to compete with Signal. It’s just meant to improve privacy, which is a good thing to do on its own merits.
If I never hear Matrix evangelism again after today, it would be far too soon.
If anyone feels like I’m picking on Matrix, don’t worry: I have far worse things to say about Telegram, Threema, XMPP+OMEMO, Tox, and a myriad other projects that are hungry for Signal’s market share but don’t measure up from a cryptographic security perspective.
If Signal fucked up as bad as these projects, my criticism of Signal would be equally harsh. (And remember, I have looked at Signal before.)
Sure, every platform has its own set of problems, and it's fine to make an informed decision that you're willing to accept the deficiencies of a particular platform you're using. The issue I have is with people pretending that Signal doesn't have the problems that it has as we can see happening in this very thread.
Exactly, what we call this information is entirely besides the point. What matters is that it's being collected, and nobody outside the people operating the server knows how this information is used. If somebody says they trust Whisper and make a conscious choice to share that information with the company that's perfectly fine. However, telling people that the problem doesn't exist is dangerously dishonest.
In a series of secret meetings, the Resnicks seized control of California’s public water supply. Now they’ve built a business empire by selling it back to working people.
Art by Harubaki
Art by AJ
, a second signature
is also possible (where
is the order of the elliptic curve group you’re working with).
.
, thus signatures are malleable. You can verify this yourself by looking at the Ed25519 verification code.
Art: CMYKat
Art: CMYKat
Art by AJ
Credit: CMYKat
Credit: CMYKat
BradleyUffner
in reply to John • • •John
in reply to BradleyUffner • • •