Are the pharmaceuticals, health care, transportation, technology, and information industries not means to be seized?
China may produce the bulk of the physical products we use, but we produce thought and systems capitalists use for the benifut of the few. The means are for the many imo
One precludes the other from happening in the first place though. If the means of production are publicly owned, then the problem of capital accumulation goes away entirely.
Yes, which you can appropriate by siezing control. The Proletarian State can oppress the bourgeoisie the same way the bourgeoisie oppresses the poletariat.
Production by individuals does provide a chance to get ahead, but ultimately individuals cannot compete with massive corporations that fill every crack and crevice available. It makes more sense to try to work towards cooperative production along a common plan as production itself becomes more complicated and large-scale.
It starts with mass worker organization, usually a nation-wide revolutionary party allying with local worker unions and other organizations. Eventually, the working class becomes well-organized and politically aware, and the contradictions between the organized working class and the Capitalists sharpen, resulting in revolution. What follows is a replacement of the existing State with the organizations built up by the working class, and the beginning of conscious planning in production taking priority over the competition of markets in driving the economy.
Sorry, where's the part where the means of production gets seized by labourers? What does THAT look like in Punxsutawney? What are we taking, from whom, how?
The revolution. One of the necessary lessons from the Paris Commune is that you can't simply lay hold of the Means of Production, but must replace the Bourgeois state with a Proletarian one. By taking control of the state, the Proletariat can wrest from the Bourgeoisie their Capital and begin producing along a common plan for the good of all.
You can't just sieze production in Punxsutawney without doing so nationally, at the federal level. Otherwise, the state will come in and break up the rising worker movement with force, as it has done many times in the past.
Bit of a non-sequitor to compare individual production to large, mass-scale corporations, no? People are suggesting changing ownership from private to public and producing along a common plan for the common good, rather than the profits of a few individuals.
The best things you can do to advance Socialism personally is to get organized and read theory. Join a union, party, or other working class org, and do your best to study Leftist theory and historical applications of theory so we can learn from what worked well, improve what almost worked well, and prevent making the same mistakes.
The best things you can do to advance Socialism personally is to get organized and read theory. Join a union, party, or other working class org, and do your best to study Leftist theory and historical applications of theory so we can learn from what worked well, improve what almost worked well, and prevent making the same mistakes.
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
Suppose we replace all capitalists with worker cooperatives. What happens when two worker cooperatives compete in free market? We'll still be at capitalism, wont we?
Workers coops is still capitalism since it is still about maximizing profits for them. Socialism is when the means of productions are own for everyone through nationalization, and through a Marxist Leninist party.
Under Marxist analysis, kinda, essentially. Worker cooperatives change the relation from Proletarian/bourgeois to entirely Petite Bourgeoisie. The worker-owners of each firm are, by ownership, more interested in their own firm's success than the success of the broader economy. This is the main critique of Market Socialism from a Marxian analysis.
Now, that doesn't mean Market Socialism isn't an improvement on Capitalism, it certainly helps reduce exploitation, but you don't actually gain the benefits of collectivized ownership and common planning that allows Humanity to truly take mastery over Capital. The benefits of moving from competition to cooperation is massive.
Realistically, cooperatives can serve as a good basis of a transitional Socialist state, alongside traditional markets and a robust public sector, as long as strong central planning is employed and gradually the cooperatives and traditional private firms are folded into the Public Sector over time as they develop to the level that public ownership and planning becomes more efficient than market forces.
Thanks, Cowbee! It seems to me, that in practice (as opposed to theory, not game), if socialism is 5 steps away on the chessboard, then market socialism has to be step 1, simply because that's where we are (1. markets aren't going away tomorrow, and 2. everyone currently has to engage in the economy one way or another). It's what is the 'adjacent next'. Changing everyone's minds all at once seems mathematically impossible. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is possible that all our collective energies might be better spent focusing on just step 1.
No problem! As for your analysis, it depends on if you agree with Marx, and Marxists, or not. If we hold to Marxian analysis, we need to tweak a few things here. As a Marxist, I am going to do my best to stick with that.
What is Socialism?
Socialism is a transitional stage to Communism. It is characterized by, above all, an economy where public ownership and central planning is primary. There's really no such thing as a pure system untainted by what came before it or what will come next, which is where Dialectical and Historical Materialism come into play as philosophical aspects of Marxism. The reason this is important is because Socialism isn't 5 steps away, it's simply one revolution away, and such a system can't abolish Private Property or enforce full worker cooperatives overnight as the infrastructure for that hasn't been developed.
Put another way, if the company you work at right this instant turned into a worker cooperative, production would grind to a halt as everyone tried to figure out how to change organizational structur
... show more
No problem! As for your analysis, it depends on if you agree with Marx, and Marxists, or not. If we hold to Marxian analysis, we need to tweak a few things here. As a Marxist, I am going to do my best to stick with that.
What is Socialism?
Socialism is a transitional stage to Communism. It is characterized by, above all, an economy where public ownership and central planning is primary. There's really no such thing as a pure system untainted by what came before it or what will come next, which is where Dialectical and Historical Materialism come into play as philosophical aspects of Marxism. The reason this is important is because Socialism isn't 5 steps away, it's simply one revolution away, and such a system can't abolish Private Property or enforce full worker cooperatives overnight as the infrastructure for that hasn't been developed.
Put another way, if the company you work at right this instant turned into a worker cooperative, production would grind to a halt as everyone tried to figure out how to change organizational structures, responsibilities, and how to run things. This extends further when you add in the incredible complexity of logistics, supply lines, who your company trades with for machinery and raw materials, etc.
Why cooperative property?
If we hold Marxian analysis, it is through market competition that companies centralize and prepare themselves better for central planning. Wal-mart, Amazon, etc all develop and employ incredibly complex forms of internal market planning that can simply be adjusted after folding into the public sector. Whether this company is cooperative or private makes no difference on its ability to shift to public ownership and central planning.
In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed.
How do we get to Communism, and what role can worker cooperatives play in that?
The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can't simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it. This process will be entirely different in every country, but most will have certain constants.
What will this new Socialist State do? First, highly developed and critical industries will be nationalized and planned. The remaining industries will retain private property and cooperatives, but with heavy involvement in planning from the government. This becomes a sort of Socialist Market Economy, where the Public Sector is primary, and markets are heavily controlled but allowed in order to develop the Productive Forces to the point that they can be harvested and folded into the Public Sector. Where applicable, cooperatives can help reduce the levels of exploitation in the interim between private ownership and public ownership, especially in the agricultural sector where farming isn't as industrialized. Gradually, class struggle is heightened and eventually full public ownership is achieved.
In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed. How do we get to Communism, and what role can worker cooperatives play in that? The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can’t simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it.
Right, so market socialism is better than capitalism, and I'm arguing it is easier to get there than revolution. I'm also kinda arguing that market socialism will naturally lead to everyone just donating their belongings to the greater good once everyone is content with what they get from market socialism, otherwise I see it impractical to simply snatch private assets for public ownership. Lastly, I agree it would seem like the bourgeoise would never allow it, but things like Linux and the fediverse exist and they'll only
... show more
Thanks again!
In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed. How do we get to Communism, and what role can worker cooperatives play in that? The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can’t simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it.
Right, so market socialism is better than capitalism, and I'm arguing it is easier to get there than revolution. I'm also kinda arguing that market socialism will naturally lead to everyone just donating their belongings to the greater good once everyone is content with what they get from market socialism, otherwise I see it impractical to simply snatch private assets for public ownership. Lastly, I agree it would seem like the bourgeoise would never allow it, but things like Linux and the fediverse exist and they'll only get stronger and harder to beat with network effect.
I guess I have to ask, why do you think Market Socialism is easier than revolution, and if so, why hasn't that happened? Same with the idea of people just donating to the greater good, in a system surrounding competition?
There's a difference between FOSS and production, where industrial Capital can cost billions.
Revolution requires convincing 8 billion people of a possible utopia whereas market socialism exists right now to some degree - FOSS, cooperatives, credit unions etc. are all part of market socialism. 120 million Americans for example are part of credit unions - more than any big bank in America. If we connected all the credit unions so they could talk to each other, you could transact with any branch or ATM - it could rival any big bank. It is harder to convince someone to upend their life for revolution than to convince them the benefits of credit unions over regular banking (again, markets, or in this case banking exists, and we need to engage with it currently). As for donating, many donate to Wikipedia, fediverse etc. When we are not starving, we'll donate it all to a good cause.
First off, it's great that you're thinking about things seriously, I don't want to discredit that effort. However, there are several issues with this.
Revolution
Historically, revolution has happened in the Global South, and not merely by convincing the working class, but through organization. Look to how Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc all had revolutions, and you'll see it was driven by sharpening contradictions in class antagonisms.
"Utopia"
Marxism rejects Utopianism, ie thinking of a model and trying to build it outright. Marxism requires revolution, yes, but takes a gradualist approach to collectivization once the revolution has happened. This is Scientific Socialism, which analyzes trajectories in Capitalism to predict what a Socialist society would look like.
FOSS
FOSS isn't "Market Socialism." It's its own category of software that doesn't rely on profit or competition.
Connecting all of the Credit Unions
How do you plan to go about such a monumental task? Most Credit Unions are
... show more
First off, it's great that you're thinking about things seriously, I don't want to discredit that effort. However, there are several issues with this.
Revolution
Historically, revolution has happened in the Global South, and not merely by convincing the working class, but through organization. Look to how Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc all had revolutions, and you'll see it was driven by sharpening contradictions in class antagonisms.
"Utopia"
Marxism rejects Utopianism, ie thinking of a model and trying to build it outright. Marxism requires revolution, yes, but takes a gradualist approach to collectivization once the revolution has happened. This is Scientific Socialism, which analyzes trajectories in Capitalism to predict what a Socialist society would look like.
FOSS
FOSS isn't "Market Socialism." It's its own category of software that doesn't rely on profit or competition.
Connecting all of the Credit Unions
How do you plan to go about such a monumental task? Most Credit Unions are local organizations, for local users. There isn't a historical example of this happening.
Going from a unified Credit Union to charity
Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn't be willing to or able to donate en mass.
For all of these reasons, this isn't really a practical plan, which is why studying history and theory is important.
Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn’t be willing to or able to donate en mass.
If you can imagine a global unified credit union, where everyone is equal, with better benefits than traditional banks, you've essentially removed capitalists from banking - think about that. You could do the same with other essential industries like education, healthcare, food etc.
I understand the concept, the problem is with implementing it from where we are now, and proving that energy would not be better applied via revolution and implementing Socalism. Your thought process is along the same lines as the Utopian Socialists like Owen, who tried to convince people but ultimatley failed. The reason Marxism has a much better track record is because of Scientific Socialism, which is based on analyzing how to get from here to there. I recommend reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
As I understand, scientific socialism acknowledges class struggle and current material conditions, but still requires overthrow of capitalist systems. You're suggesting it's easier to convince people to overthrow their banks (and have no personal banking?) rather than switch to a global credit union.
I'm suggesting that the idea of creating a global credit union within the boundaries set by Capitalism, and carrying it to fruition, is far more difficult than revolution. You're asking the absolute most wealthy individuals to sit by and watch their wealth dry up and to do nothing about it.
Okay, at least we're talking about execution now. I'll read the essay, but like unix and fediverse and credit unions exist right now and capitalists can't stop them. They can only compete with them in the free market. They certainly won't be able to stop them once they get even bigger and more mainstream.
So you're saying the fediverse can't outgrow Reddit because it's FOSS and not corporate controlled? I'm saying it will and there's nothing Reddit can do about it.
Not sure why what? Btw I found this to add to the discussion - - it seems market socialism is compatible with Marxism - markets existed before capitalism and will exist in market socialism too, while planning could be a mix of central and local.
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Why do you think FOSS and Lemmy in general will overtake Reddit?
Either way, as for Wolff, Marxists don't say you can't have coops in Socialism, I explained earlier how we could have them in Socialism, Marxists however believe revolution is easier and still necessary than peacefully asking the ruling class to watch as their Capital gets wrested from them.
And since this meme comes from Reddit, I made 100% certain (adjustment for inside the USA: 120%) to not research it in the slightest, just putting out here all confidently-like without a care in the world for anything other than how it makes us feel.
I recently took up Bazzite from mint and I love it! After using it for a few days I found out it was an immutable distro, after looking into what that is I thought it was a great idea. I love the idea of getting a fresh image for every update, I think for businesses/ less tech savvy people it adds another layer of protection from self harm because you can't mess with the root without extra steps.
For anyone who isn't familiar with immutable distros I attached a picture of mutable vs immutable, I don't want to describe it because I am still learning.
My question is: what does the community think of it?
Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?
Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?
Linux isn't about choice, it's about freedom. Distro's don't owe you the choices you want, because the devs have the freedom to make what they want. You also have the freedom to modify them or make whatever distro you want.
Immutable ≠ atomic, but they generally come as a package deal. Bazzite, Silverblue, and all those other distro's that call themselves atomic are also immutable. An atomic distro is just one with atomic updates, and an immutable distro is any distro with a read-only core.
These distro's have started mainly calling themselves atomic because they agree that immutable is a poor description that generally confuses users.
A distro can be both atomic and immutable, and they often go hand in hand.
Immutable simply means the core of a distro is read-only, meaning it cannot be modified by usual means. There are still ways to modify these files, but it works differently than in other distros.
Atomic distros are ones that update atomically. Atomic is used to describe an operation that cannot be cancelled in the middle of it, they either complete, or nothing changes. This means you can't break things by cancelling an update midway through. Atomic distros also often come with the ability to rollback to the previous build of the system.
You're definitely out of date on your knowledge then. Nothing inherently insecure about any of these. Only download software you trust, just like you should be doing with any software format!
If you're mainly using GUI apps you'll probably just be installing everything through flatpak, which you can use via the Discover store that comes with KDE Plasma. CLI apps are installed using homebrew.
99% of the times on KDE neon I install using deb files and dpkg
if something makes linux more secure, safer or easier to use then it'll be hated because people in the linux community are allergic to all those things. Secure boot? they hate it, wayland? they hate it, immutability? they hate it, flatpaks/sandboxed app? they hate it, gnome? they hate it. Even rust is hated by many.
Unless "read-only" is being enforced by hardware (reading from optical media, etc), a compromised sudo user can circumvent anything, and write anywhere. A read-only flag or the root filesystem being mounted from somehwere else are just trivial extra steps in the way.
Improved security != extremely secure, is all I'm saying. There are a lot of things that go into making a system extremely secure, and while an immutable root filesystem may be one of them, it doesn't do the job all on its own as advertised in this post.
I'm not sure that would've influenced my situation with a dual core i5-6300U and 4gb ram, it's a pretty sluggish thing from the get go. But good to know about distrobox maybe that can help me in the future. Now rocking Debian and it's great.
Debian sounds like a great fit for you. But it's good to know that Universal Blue has a lot of tools available for installing and tinkering that many just don't know about. They are extremely powerful OSs.
I don't really know what you're saying. Most software is distributed as binaries, that doesn't make them inherently untrustworthy, you just need to have trust in whoever is distributing it. It's trivial to look at the build process of a flatpak and verify that it is legitimate. Just because the binary isn't being built from source by every user doesn't make it insecure.
I have investigated the idea and came to the conclusion that immutable distros are essentially a research project. They attempt to advance the state-of-art a slight bit but the cost is currently too great.
Perhaps somebody will some day create something that's worth switching to. But I don't think that has happened yet, or is happening with any of the current distros. Silverblue might become that with enough polish, but I feel that to get that amount of polish, they would have to make Silverblue the 1st class citizen, i.e. the default install of Fedora.
I copied that path straight out of the Files app. Unfortunately it does not work. There is a yellow exclamation point flag next to it that says "This is not a valid option."
I ended up installing the rpm-ostree version of Firefox, which accesses my Nas just fine for proton drive uploads. I do hope to eventually figure out how to do this with flatpak/flatseal, but this works for now at least. I appreciate the help!
I added this edit above. Pasting here in case you are curious. Cheers.
EDIT: This thread motivated me to try and fix this issue. Installing Firefox using rpm-ostree worked. I expected it would, though I am still hoping to figure this out using the Flatpak version at some point. I also tried using Distrobox/Box Buddy to create a Fedora 40 box and install Firefox there. That version of Firefox couldn’t even see my NAS at all (unlike the Flatpak which could see my NAS but couldn’t upload files from the NAS to Proton). This was my first time ever using Distrobox. I thought it was super cool to see it in action and get a working Firefox, even though I couldn’t use it to access my NAS as hoped.
Not when every app decides to use a different point version of the same damn platform.
"Hello Mr. Application. I see you'd like to use the Freedesktop-SDK 23.08.27
"Oh...well hello other application. What's this? You want to use Freedesktop-SDK 24.08.10? Well....I guess so..."
Edited to add: Yes, I know that flatpaks will upgrade to use updated platforms. But it doesn't automatically remove the old one, forcing you to have to run flatpak remove --unused every week just to keep your drive clean. That's hardly user friendly for the average person.
The average person has a 1tb+ drive and doesn't care about a few hundred megabytes of bloat in a partition they will never look at. If someone is switching from Windows, every app having its dependencies self contained is mostly normal anyway (aside from the occasional system provided dll). The only people likely to care about removing old flatpak platforms are the kind of people who don't mind running the command to remove them.
The average person doesn't own a computer anymore, but I think steam users are pretty representative of people who want to use the OS that markets itself as "The next generation of Linux gaming"
I had a systemd unit that ran it weekly after the update one ran. I feel like the default behavior though should be automatic purge old unused runtimes though too. I don't see why that wouldn't the case to me.
I've even gone so far as wanting to force run time changes underneath the packs because of Caves and such, but thats my niche and puts security over function.
Definitely not a free lunch sys admin wise, but it is still a marked improvement over native apps 98% of the time for me.
The barrier for me is that I use a lot of apps which require native messaging for inter-program communication (keepass browser, citation managers talking to Libreoffice, etc.), and the portal hasn't been implemented yet. Its been stuck in PR comment hell for years. Looks like its getting close, but flatpak-only is a hard no go for me until then.
Even after that, I would worry about doing some Dev work on atomic distros, and I worry about running into other hard barriers in the future.
Flatpak is completely open source software and any proprietary software in it has a large warning about how it's proprietary. I don't know why you think proprietary software vendors are pushing these. Ublue, NixOS, and Fedora Silverblue are all community run, not being pushed by some malicious group pushing proprietary software.
Why companies even have anything to gain from their proprietary software being in a container? All that would do is make data collection more difficult.
Bazzite is great. I was using Nobara before it, and Solus before that and Bazzite has been the best experience I ever had on Linux, I don't plan on changing distros as long as it remains a thing.
I use Aurora Linux which is the sister one to Bazzite, both are Fedora 41 based images. They strongly encourage using the FlatPak approach to installing software. After using it for a few weeks now, I can see why. One of the things with the immutable setup is once you install a program, you have to reboot to get it to run, but with Flatpak, it isn't so. I think Flatpak has it's merits - if they have an app which you normally use, then it's easy enough to install and go.
For the Fedora side of things, you can "layer" apps over it using the rpm-ostree but they encourage you to only do that as a last resort. One of the things they enable you to do is install additional OS's containerized which integrate with the desktop environment. For example, right now, I can only run Scrcpy in a different OS (That I've been able to figure out so far), so I just spin up an Arch OS container and launch it from there, and can interface with my phone normally. As I understand too, the developers plan on disabling layering in a future release. To be honest, I don't think I have but one thing lay
... show more
I use Aurora Linux which is the sister one to Bazzite, both are Fedora 41 based images. They strongly encourage using the FlatPak approach to installing software. After using it for a few weeks now, I can see why. One of the things with the immutable setup is once you install a program, you have to reboot to get it to run, but with Flatpak, it isn't so. I think Flatpak has it's merits - if they have an app which you normally use, then it's easy enough to install and go.
For the Fedora side of things, you can "layer" apps over it using the rpm-ostree but they encourage you to only do that as a last resort. One of the things they enable you to do is install additional OS's containerized which integrate with the desktop environment. For example, right now, I can only run Scrcpy in a different OS (That I've been able to figure out so far), so I just spin up an Arch OS container and launch it from there, and can interface with my phone normally. As I understand too, the developers plan on disabling layering in a future release. To be honest, I don't think I have but one thing layered and that's my Label Printer's driver.
The benefit for me using the immutable system and this is the hardest thing to grasp for a lot of people including myself is that it truly is set and forget type of updating. With Arch, you can become sort of addicted to checking for new releases, and I'm not going to lie, it's amazing to get some of the newest releases of your favorite app or browser especially when they fix something. With Arch, it's generally there. With my system, I turned on auto updates, so it's not too uncommon to bring the system up in the morning and see that updates have been given (I don't notice them usually). It's nice not having to worry about that as much.
Because it improves security and privacy, something they can advertise as a feature. There's no negative for them to implement, it's their phone, they can already collect all the data they want. It still prevents other apps from accessing data they shouldn't.
Why do you think phone makers push it? What possible malicious reason do you think proprietary software makers have to push containerization and sandboxing? What do they gain?
Correct about security. Unable to inspect the code running, unable to control your own device fully, and really secure at keeping the user out of their hardware.
And for apps shipped in containers? No need to be a part of the FLOSS community, because you can easily ship software to your users that provides no freedoms.
.... why would you want to install packages with sudo? The proper way is to install them (as a user, not root) using rpm-ostree, which will layer the packages on top of the image, automatically installing them for every future system as well.
You haven't actually looked into immutable distributions, have you?
Same issue, I still use nix on m'y laptop because it's neat as can be, but I have to admit developing on nix can be quite a hassle if you don't go it "the nix way", moreover some packages don't work as well because nix doesn't link binaries the standard way (zed editor for example)
I'm much more comfortable trying things that I'm not sure will (or expect not to) work. I can just blast the toolbox or whatever afterwards.
Compare to some of my earlier forays into Linux, where I'd do some nonsense and then attempts to remove said nonsense would break some other load-bearing part of the OS.
Those things have nothing to do with containerization. They can do those things without it. Containerization exists to improve privacy and security. It can do the same thing on Linux.
Even if you trust an app, it can have vulnerabilities you are unaware of. Containerization helps limit the effects damage from a vulnerability could have. They also simplify the distribution of software, which is the primary goal of Flatpak. There are benefits for using containers for open source software, you're just refusing to acknowledge them. Nobody is forcing you to use containerization, and I don't care to convince you to. I just think acting like Flatpak and other container based package formats is some corporate conspiracy is silly. Flatpak is FOSS and mainly distributes FOSS.
Of course it's ok! You do whatever you want. Though I'd like to clear up a couple of misconceptions:
I don’t want to deal with images. I don’t want to have to be cleaning the system from those images to reclaim my storage.
You don't have to, happens automatically.
I dislike flatpaks, snaps and appimage on which immutable distros rely.
Fair, though you don't have to use them at all - you could run everything in a distrobox.
The lack of customization as you can’t modify system files or install traditional packages outside the immutable framework, which limits personal tweaks.
This really depends on what system files you mean. Anything in /etc/? Fully writable. Everything is configurable either in your home directory or in /etc/, so I haven't run into any issues with not being able to modify something - and if you do run into that, you always have distrobox.
Apps availability, not all apps on the planet exist
... show more
Of course it's ok! You do whatever you want. Though I'd like to clear up a couple of misconceptions:
I don’t want to deal with images. I don’t want to have to be cleaning the system from those images to reclaim my storage.
You don't have to, happens automatically.
I dislike flatpaks, snaps and appimage on which immutable distros rely.
Fair, though you don't have to use them at all - you could run everything in a distrobox.
The lack of customization as you can’t modify system files or install traditional packages outside the immutable framework, which limits personal tweaks.
This really depends on what system files you mean. Anything in /etc/? Fully writable. Everything is configurable either in your home directory or in /etc/, so I haven't run into any issues with not being able to modify something - and if you do run into that, you always have distrobox.
Apps availability, not all apps on the planet exist in flatpaks.
Don't need to, you have distrobox for that.
The learning curve.
That's fair. It's been very small for me, and the issues have helped me become a better Linux developer, but it does bring its own problems in some cases.
Having to change the way I interact with my computer completely, I’m too fucking lazy for that and way too cozy where I am.
That's the thing, I hear this a lot, and I just don't know what the big changes are. I installed Kinoite, set up a distrobox, and have been smooth sailing since - all my previous installations have had far more issues, and I just haven't really changed much (besides switching from Ubuntu to Fedora, but I'm happy about that, fuck Canonical).
Then you have NixOS, which is declarative, and fairly immutable.
You don't have to reboot to make changes, but you can't just run unlinked binaries either.
You can't do things like edit your hosts table or modify the FS for cron jobs. The application store is unwritable, but you can sync new apps into it .
You have to make changes to the config file and run a rebuild as root.
just for clarity: you can modify stuff like hosts or cron jobs but it'd get overwritten iirc? you can also make the change in the config and have it persist (reproducibility being the main point, not disallowing you to edit your files)
No, that file is located in the nix store and linked back, If you become root and try to edit /etc/hosts It will complain that you cannot edit the linked file.
If you go and try to edit the store directly you will meet the same kind of dead ends because /nix/store is a ro bind mount
With enough root access, time and persistence you could eventually unwrap its flavor of immutability which is why I said mostly immutable. Compared to most operating systems where you can just slip a quick edit into a cron job it's leagues ahead.
Is it stable enough to recommend for non-techy users? Set-and-forget sounds ideal for someone who doesn't understand (and doesn't really need to understand) all the updates their machine is doing.
As cloud technologies and containerization evolve, we enter a new era of software development where flexibility, scalability, and efficiency become key requirements for any project. Dev Containers, or
In my opinion so far yes, I've only been on it a few weeks, but think of the immutable as locking down the root partition and any vital directories to the OS and not allowing your user to modify anything. In the event of a bad update, it's easy enough to select the previous boot in Grub and be on your merry way.
I have a special needs adult step-daughter who's PC I manage and I always need to keep it updated, setting it up on their Bluefin version which uses Gnome which she loves. So, I may do it this weekend. She's currently on Endeavor OS (Arch based) but it keeps getting kernel updates daily it seems and with those a reboot. Additionally, for whatever reason, her system goes to sleep without warning sometimes so if I'm updating it, it's gone to sleep. (Super weird). I've never had it do this before with Standard Arch linux so I think its something to do with Endeaver. I've never bothered to troubleshoot it to be honest. With a setup on the BlueFin (Aurora Linux is KDE), enabling Auto updates should be a breeze and then she's golden for being updated without my intervention.
I don't work in tech but I love to tinker , have a home lab etc. I love using Linux for this, been on Linux for close to 20 years.
Got a steam deck little over a year ago, it was my first immutable
I just moved to an immutable silver blue. Been loving it so far. There's a few things I have issues with, but it's "just works". I still distro hop and fuck around breaking my system for fun from time to time, hahahah. But having my main system on immutable has been great.
I have a really hard time getting Aurora working the way all my other Linux devices so that are running some form of Ubuntu (Mate or Bodhi). With that said, it's been very stable and i like not being interrupted with packages to install while working on things...
Not to tinker is a good thing for me at least. Some are Ok using LFS, Gentoo, etc. But distribution like Fedora Silverblue is low maintenance as i just want my task easy and an OS that just works.
The whole point of Linux is to be a FOSS kernel/OS, that's it.
Anything you want to (legally and morally) do with it is fine and you should not have to conform to arbitrary limitations set by others.
If you think that Linux is only for tinkering, not only are you completely wrong (since most machines running Linux are meant to be stable and not tinkered with, think servers, iot, embedded devices, etc) you are also missing the point of FOSS, since it aims to give the user freedom to do as they see fit, which includes preferring stability and security over tinkering.
I don't think the point of Linux is to tinker. That would kinda make it for tinkerers only. In my view, the point of Linux is that its a kernel only and you can use it to build an OS around and build one which is easy to tinker with or one which isn't. Point is, not every system is suited for every task and the Linux kernel allows you to use it how you wish (via distros or you can make your own system around it). Why the gatekeeping?
When I just want it to work for my needs (i.e. using just web browser for most people) there's no difference. Except immutable is less prone to go wrong.
Fair enough but the sole reason I went to Linux is because I despise Microsoft. I wanted a less bloated, not ad ridden, and more customized( mainly just the GUI) experience that gave me more control over my PC. Now I only use this PC for gaming and streaming, so really I just want those two things to work with as little fiddling as possible. Obviously everyone's use case is different and immutable is definitely not a good choice for power users (from what I've read).
All that's totally fine! I wasn't trying to convince you. I just don't want newbies to get discouraged by reading "all this stuff is non-standard and you can't tinker and do stuff". Because you can, it's the same stuff.
Definitely not, this kind of system is perfect for newbies. You have a distrobox you can break all day long, and your main system stays nice and working.
That's what I mean. You put it like it's incredibly complicated and strange, when there's pretty much only upsides. Do you have any idea how much time I've spent on various distributions to debug NVidia issues? Everything is working perfectly now, and it has for months. I've never had this good of a Linux experience.
Everyone has their own opinion, personally I think they're a great idea and have lots of great applications. But just like rolling vs non-rolling release it's a personal and application dependant choice.
Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?
Again, depends, for my personal computer I wouldn't use it because I think it could get complicated to get specific things to work, but for closed hardware like the Deck or even a fairly stable desktop used as a gaming system it's perfect.
Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?
It could, it can also hamper it because people might start to try solutions that only work until next boot and not understanding why, or having problems getting some special hardware to work (more than it would be a mutable distro). But there is a great counter to this which is that once it's running it will be very difficult to break by user error.
At the end of the day I think it's a cool tec
... show more
what does the community think of it?
Everyone has their own opinion, personally I think they're a great idea and have lots of great applications. But just like rolling vs non-rolling release it's a personal and application dependant choice.
Do the downsides outweigh the benefits or vice versa?
Again, depends, for my personal computer I wouldn't use it because I think it could get complicated to get specific things to work, but for closed hardware like the Deck or even a fairly stable desktop used as a gaming system it's perfect.
Could this help Linux reach more mainstream audiences?
It could, it can also hamper it because people might start to try solutions that only work until next boot and not understanding why, or having problems getting some special hardware to work (more than it would be a mutable distro). But there is a great counter to this which is that once it's running it will be very difficult to break by user error.
At the end of the day I think it's a cool technology but that people should know what they're getting into, just like when choosing rolling vs non-rolling distro, it's not about what's better, but what suits your needs best.
Secure can also mean more resilient. The infosec C-I-A triangle has three legs. Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Immutable distros are more resilient and thus offer better availability in the face of attacks or accidents.
Since the idea is that the "root partition" is immutable, serious question:
How do you fix a hardware config issue or a distro packaging / provision issue in an immutable distro?
Several times in my Linux history I've found that, for example, I need to remove package-provided files from the ALSA files in /usr/share/alsa in order for the setup to work with my particular chipset (which has a hardware bug). Other times, I've found that even if I set up a custom .XCompose file in my $HOME, some applications insist on reading the Compose files in /usr/share/X11/locale instead, which means I need to be able to edit or remove those files. In order to add custom themes, I need to be able to add them to /usr/share/{icons,themes}, since replicating those themes for each $HOME in the system is a notorious waste of space and not all applications seem to respect /usr/local/share. Etc.
Unless I'm mistaken on how immutable systems work, I'm not sure immutable systems are really useful to someone who actu
... show more
Since the idea is that the "root partition" is immutable, serious question:
How do you fix a hardware config issue or a distro packaging / provision issue in an immutable distro?
Several times in my Linux history I've found that, for example, I need to remove package-provided files from the ALSA files in /usr/share/alsa in order for the setup to work with my particular chipset (which has a hardware bug). Other times, I've found that even if I set up a custom .XCompose file in my $HOME, some applications insist on reading the Compose files in /usr/share/X11/locale instead, which means I need to be able to edit or remove those files. In order to add custom themes, I need to be able to add them to /usr/share/{icons,themes}, since replicating those themes for each $HOME in the system is a notorious waste of space and not all applications seem to respect /usr/local/share. Etc.
Unless I'm mistaken on how immutable systems work, I'm not sure immutable systems are really useful to someone who actually wants to or needs to power user Linux, or customize past the "branding locking" that environments like Gnome have been aiming for for like a decade.
On the one hand sounds sensible, on the other hand I wonder if that's possible when wanting to apply things that need to take place as early in boot as possible (eg.: modprobe options for a module, apparmor profiles, ...).
I had to turn it off (which is easy in plasma) because I have two different monitors and they have different brightness, so it was either first one insanely bright to other one being normal or first being normal to second barely dim.
Good. I just quickly glanced at the site and there were multiple mentions of Ubuntu... Glad they switched to Debian, this way I might try it on second PC.
Well it's a bit confusing. On Guix' wiki General features you can read:
Guix keeps track of these references automatically so that installed packages can be garbage collected when no other package depends on them - at the cost of greater storage requirements, all upgrades in Guix are guaranteed to be both atomic and can be rolled back.
The roll-back feature of Guix is inherited from the design of Nix and is rarely found in other operating systems, since it requires an unorthodox approach to how the system should function (see MicroOS).
This is accomplished by a combination of Guix's functional package manager, which treats each package and system configuration as an immutable and reproducible entity,[58] and the
... show more
Well it's a bit confusing. On Guix' wiki General features you can read:
Guix keeps track of these references automatically so that installed packages can be garbage collected when no other package depends on them - at the cost of greater storage requirements, all upgrades in Guix are guaranteed to be both atomic and can be rolled back.
The roll-back feature of Guix is inherited from the design of Nix and is rarely found in other operating systems, since it requires an unorthodox approach to how the system should function (see MicroOS).
This is accomplished by a combination of Guix's functional package manager, which treats each package and system configuration as an immutable and reproducible entity,[58] and the generation system which maintains a history of system configurations as "generations."
So the system configurations on a Guix system are actually immutable, as opposed to regular gnu+linux distributions, which can change the system configuration on the fly. What else is immutable on Guix, I can't tell, but at least you can not change its system configs. What is atomic is the upgrades.
I'm not sure, but as Guix borrowed these properties from Nix, I'd think this applies to Nix as well.
In other words, at least the Guix system has immutable components. And further, the system config which is immutable, is also declarative. Combining those two things might be intimidating, since it's not like on the fly one can go and change the system config, which might be required when debugging some misbehavior, and it's what most distros document, then one needs to learn about guile, and a bit about functional programming I guess or at least their basics... Deploying systems might take advantage of such declarative configurations though...
Go back and look at all the good faith replies to you, and notice that you haven't replied in kind. You seem like you have a strong and incorrect agenda to push, without being willing to take on any new information which people are providing to you.
You only harm yourself by being fixed in your mindset. There is a very strong correlation between success and people who are able to take on information and grow.
He can be an asshole, but I believe finding bugs is part of his job.
Would you rather have him find them and complain to a community who might know what they could be, or someone else who will just complain and buy a MacBook instead?
Hey! So I have no experience with the Arch-based immutable systems (beyond my own Steam Deck), but it seems like they don't support layering the way Fedora does with ostree. The easiest solution for you would be to create a script that you can execute after every update - that should at least keep the work to a minimum. If that's not good enough Bazzite is probably your best bet. I really like the atomic Fedora systems, but I can understand not wanting to re-do your setup if it's working well!
BTW, just in case, not only the system configs are inmutable on Guix, the root/system directory is also read-only making it an inmutable distribution. So the argument that the Guix system is not inmutable is not correct. There are many places clearly stating that, but the itsfoss 12 inmutable linux distributions is one of them, and by its definition of inmutable:
An immutable distro ensures that the operating system's core remains unchanged. The root file system for an immutable distro remains read-only, making it possible to stay the same across multiple instances.
So Guix is actually an unmutable distribution. But moreover, it's much more than that.
Lawmakers in El Salvador have voted to reintroduce industrial mining in the country, ending a landmark ban that was meant to protect freshwater and public health.
Prosecutors also accuse her of accepting bribes in the form of Rolex watches and jewelry, and she is being investigated over the deaths of more than 50 protesters during a crackdown on demonstrations against her presidency in 2022. She has denied any wrongdoing.
The title they went with was about her nose, and that she took two weeks off, but her being corrupt is the actual issue...
On the heels of TikTok's looming shut down on January 19 over its ownership in the U.S. (unless the Supreme Court intervenes), it looks like another American users are flocking to a Chinese app called Xiaohongshu as people become less optimistic that…
That strategy kinda works too, because the law is always slower than tech, or new companies popping up. Plus its hard to roust US lawmakers to do anything but approve defense budgets.
Like the US is trying their damndest to keep Chinese phones out of the US, so they targeted Huawei. But Xiaomi, Oneplus, OPPO, Realme, and Nubia are all still growing strong.
It's hilarious to me that Tik-Tok was banned for its ties to China (despite the US version of the app being hosted entirely on servers in the US run by Oracle) only for users to flood to an app that is extremely obviously Chinese with an already existing Chinese netizen userbase.
The father of an Israeli captive held in Gaza said on Monday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "committing war crimes", as he expressed his support for the international arrest warrant issued against the Israeli leader.
Negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire have made significant progress, with a final draft agreement reportedly submitted to both Hamas and the 'Israeli' government for approval, according to a senior official involved in the talks.
The breakthrough came in Doha after midnight following intensive discussions between 'Israeli' intelligence leaders, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Reuters reported. The Qatari Prime Minister also held talks with Hamas leaders to push for a resolution.
join South Africa’s genocide case against "Israel" before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the court announced on Monday.
"Cuba, invoking Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, filed in the Registry of the Court a declaration of intervention in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip," the court said in a statement.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez calls on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to take a firm stand against the impunity of "Israel" and its allies.
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
What do you mean when you say they "caused untold destruction?" Do you legitimately think Tsarist Russia was better for its people than the USSR, or that the Russian Federation is better for its people now than the USSR was? Do you think the colonized, nationalist China was better for its people than the PRC? Legitimately.
In both the USSR and PRC, life expectancies doubled, literacy rates over tripled, disparity shrank dramatically while rapidly improving the economy, and famines ended in countries where that was previously common. No, not perfect, but undeniably massive improvements, and it is Marxism-Leninism and those millions who adhered to it that accomplished those massive victories.
Mortality rates in the USSR and PRC went so far down once Socialism was implemented that life expectancy doubled, and nearly doubled in the case of Cuba. Communism was horrible to the previous ruling class, but for the vast majority of people is marked by massive improvements in key metrics like literacy rates, housing rates, lower poverty rates, and life expectancy. These countries did not get worse with Socialism, they were hellish beforehand and it was the Communists that ceaselessly worked to fix their broken countries.
On a planet that produces more food than can be eaten by all the humans living on it, a holocaust worth of people starve to death every year. But this isn't counted or considered because it's 'natural.'
Meanwhile if a country manages to escape that system, it is subjected to brutal siege warfare and sabotage. And when that isolation is compounded by floods or famine, the deaths suffered are considered as failures of the system and deliberate brutality.
You grew up in the most propagandized society in the history of the world and have not done any critical examination to dispel its effect.
Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.
Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.
Critique those regimes, which shouldn't be conflated with the
... show more
Marx and Engels developed communism as a scientific critique of capitalism, envisioning a classless, stateless society built on the abolition of exploitation and private property. Their revolutionary theory sought to empower the proletariat, not to impose authoritarianism.
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao departed from this vision. Lenin’s vanguard model centralized power, which under Stalin became a tool for repression. Stalin and Mao betrayed the revolutionary spirit by targeting workers, peasants, and even communists who resisted their distortions of Marxism. Their regimes prioritized the interests of the party-state over the emancipation of the working class.
Despite the harm these deviations caused to the global proletariat and the communist movement, revolutionary theory has advanced. Many contemporary movements reject the errors of authoritarianism, advocating for socialism rooted in democratic, collective power. The struggle for communism continues, undeterred by those who betrayed its principles.
Critique those regimes, which shouldn't be conflated with the original ideals of communism as a philosophy for human equality. The horrible ones were against communists.
This isn't contemporary analysis, it's fringe among Marxists to say the least. The idea that all.AES states were betrayals of Marxism is a viewpoint nearly exclusive to Orthodox Marxism, itself a dogmatic distortion of Marxism, which is theoretically false and has produced no pracyical results, and is extremely western. You provide no background for suggesting AES leaders "distorted Marxism" nor examples of how. This is harmful and doesn't say anything, if you consider yourself a Marxist I would recommend following the Marxist principle of "no investigation, no right to speak."
Investigating Lenin, Stalin, and Mao applies Marxist analysis, not dogma. Their regimes centralized power, suppressed workers, and contradicted Marx’s principles of worker control and class abolition. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Cultural Revolution harmed proletarian agency, deviating from socialism.
Equating AES states to socialism isn’t proven. This knowledge isn’t "Western" but aligns with Marxism’s demand for accountability. Marxism thrives on self-criticism; dismissing critique stifles its revolutionary potential. "Investigate" is a good guideline, and baseless assumption for the lack of aren't helpful. Dogmatism distorts Marxism.
Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.
How did they "suppress workers?" AES came with dramatic democratizations of the economy, along with providing free, high quality healthcare and education, doubling of life expectancies, and more. Wealth disparity shrank while working class wages rose.
How did they contradict "worker control and class abolition?" AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.
How did purges and the cultural revolution harm proletarian "agency?" There were issues with those, but it wasn't about "agency."
AES is Socialist, in AES states the workers gained massive agency and power, and society begins to be collectively owned and planned.
The problem with your comments is that they say nothing. They make declarations, sure, but they don't explain any of the how or why, and as a result you get massive pushback and requests for elaboration. If you're actually a Marxist, you should be doing actual analysis and not making vague, unbacked declar
... show more
Centralization of the Means of Production is the Marxist method of reaching Communism.
How did they "suppress workers?" AES came with dramatic democratizations of the economy, along with providing free, high quality healthcare and education, doubling of life expectancies, and more. Wealth disparity shrank while working class wages rose.
How did they contradict "worker control and class abolition?" AES dramatically stepped towards collective ownwership and planning.
How did purges and the cultural revolution harm proletarian "agency?" There were issues with those, but it wasn't about "agency."
AES is Socialist, in AES states the workers gained massive agency and power, and society begins to be collectively owned and planned.
The problem with your comments is that they say nothing. They make declarations, sure, but they don't explain any of the how or why, and as a result you get massive pushback and requests for elaboration. If you're actually a Marxist, you should be doing actual analysis and not making vague, unbacked declarations.
What of Marx have you read? What does a Socialist economy look like?
Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.
Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.
Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.
Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?
The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t "actually a Marxist" or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?
... show more
Centralization: Marx advocated for centralization to empower workers, not to create a bureaucratic elite. The issue isn’t centralization itself but the exclusion of workers from meaningful control in AES states.
Worker Suppression: While AES states achieved significant social gains, suppression refers to limiting worker autonomy, like crushing independent unions or dissent. Material gains don’t erase these contradictions.
Worker Control and Class Abolition: AES moved toward collective ownership but retained a strong ruling elite, deviating from Marx’s vision of worker-led production and the state’s gradual dissolution.
Purges and Cultural Revolution: These events suppressed debate and autonomy, both vital for Marxist progress. Proletarian agency is more than material gains, are the workers actively shaping society?
The accusative tone is unnecessary. Assuming someone isn’t "actually a Marxist" or demanding reading lists shuts down discussion. Are we here to discuss and comment or just to pass judgment?
How are workers "excluded from meaningful control?" Again, you don't say anything about how or why.
I need to see some examples of "crushing independent unions and dissent." What unions, and what dissent?
What is an "elite?" What does worker ownership look like in your eyes that differs from the democratic structures in AES? Further, the real material gains for the Working Class is a signifier of the Socialist model, AES worked for the Proletariat above all else.
What debate and autonomy was suppressed? What are you saying should have been allowed?
As for why I am asking if you're a Marxist and what you've read, it's so I can fill in the blanks you are leaving. There's no discussion being had here, every time I ask for clarification you get more and more vague. If you explained that you're an Orthodox Marxist, as an example, I know where you're coming from and can fill in the gaps. If you say you're a Trot, I can also understand where you're working from. This isn't about power-level scaling with reading lists, I want to know where
... show more
How are workers "excluded from meaningful control?" Again, you don't say anything about how or why.
I need to see some examples of "crushing independent unions and dissent." What unions, and what dissent?
What is an "elite?" What does worker ownership look like in your eyes that differs from the democratic structures in AES? Further, the real material gains for the Working Class is a signifier of the Socialist model, AES worked for the Proletariat above all else.
What debate and autonomy was suppressed? What are you saying should have been allowed?
As for why I am asking if you're a Marxist and what you've read, it's so I can fill in the blanks you are leaving. There's no discussion being had here, every time I ask for clarification you get more and more vague. If you explained that you're an Orthodox Marxist, as an example, I know where you're coming from and can fill in the gaps. If you say you're a Trot, I can also understand where you're working from. This isn't about power-level scaling with reading lists, I want to know where you're drawing your conclusions from, because your analysis contradicts the overwhelming majority of Marxists worldwide.
In AES states, decision-making was often centralized in the hands of party officials or bureaucrats, not the workers themselves. Marx wanted workers to manage their workplaces directly.
Independent unions and dissenting voices were suppressed. Examples include the USSR controlling unions and the repression of Solidarity in Poland.
An elite is a small group in power, often controlling the state and economy. Worker ownership means workers democratically managing their workplaces without a ruling class.
The state suppressed critical debate, as seen in Stalin’s purges and China’s Cultural Revolution, stifling workers' ability to shape society.
I don't have a need to fall under any labels. I agree on the lack of discussion and sense there's a need to be judged for some invisible requirements which seem more vague than what I comment.
You're drawing a line between workers and party members without backing that in class analysis. The Party is made up of workers, the most politically advanced among them. Marx did not advocate for direct democracy at every level, the form of Democracy in AES is Proletarian Democracy.
What do you mean by "independent unions" being suppressed? Solidarity with what in Poland was suppressed? What is the real force being suppressed here, and is it in the interests of the working class or against it?
Back to the "Elite" argument. What do you believe the "Administration of Things" looks like? Planners and government offiicals are not distinct classes, just like in a business the middle managers are not a class distinct from the Workers. Classes are based on ownership and power, by all historical analysis the Class in power in AES is the Proletariat.
Again, you repeat yourself with respect to the purges and cultural revolution. How did they stifle worker ability to shape society? You aren't doing analysis here, just repeating a thesis
... show more
You're drawing a line between workers and party members without backing that in class analysis. The Party is made up of workers, the most politically advanced among them. Marx did not advocate for direct democracy at every level, the form of Democracy in AES is Proletarian Democracy.
What do you mean by "independent unions" being suppressed? Solidarity with what in Poland was suppressed? What is the real force being suppressed here, and is it in the interests of the working class or against it?
Back to the "Elite" argument. What do you believe the "Administration of Things" looks like? Planners and government offiicals are not distinct classes, just like in a business the middle managers are not a class distinct from the Workers. Classes are based on ownership and power, by all historical analysis the Class in power in AES is the Proletariat.
Again, you repeat yourself with respect to the purges and cultural revolution. How did they stifle worker ability to shape society? You aren't doing analysis here, just repeating a thesis you still need to prove.
The reason you should fall under some degree of label is because Marxists believe theory must be tested by practice. Those who don't belong to an org and don't adopt a label that can at least mostly be applied to themselves serve as extremely out of touch with the rest of Marxists, who daily discuss and work to come to a better understanding of theory and practice.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, for example, and think your outright rejection of Lenin to be a dogmatic error. Is there a label you mostly fit under?
Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.
Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state's control, aiming to protect workers' interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.
Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers them
... show more
Marx did emphasize proletarian democracy over direct democracy at every level, his focus was on workers managing their own workplaces. On the other hand, concentration of power within the Party often limits workers’ direct involvement in decision-making. This centralization undermines the idea of workers having control over the means of production.
Independent unions refer to organizations that challenge the state's control, aiming to protect workers' interests outside the state apparatus. The suppression of Solidarity in Poland, a movement advocating for worker rights, was more about maintaining state control than about the interests of the working class. The state’s actions against Solidarity were a way to suppress independent worker power, not a defense of worker interests.
Planners and officials may come from the working class, but they hold authority over economic decisions, separating them from ordinary workers. This division has an issue where control over resources and decision-making creates a power dynamic. The problem is not with the workers themselves but with the system that centralizes control rather than allowing workers direct control over their labor.
The purges and Cultural Revolution were significant in stifling workers' ability to shape society, as they involved the suppression of dissent and independent thought. These events were not just about removing political enemies, but about curbing the voices of those advocating for a more democratic and worker-controlled system. Marx envisioned socialism as a society in which workers could actively shape their own futures, not one dominated by a centralized authority.
Labels like Marxist-Leninist help unify political efforts, but they should not limit critical thinking or prevent independent analysis. To some labels provide clarity and structure, and there are also we adapting to changing conditions avoiding rigid dogmatism.
No, Marx did not focus on workers managing their own workplaces. This stands in stark contrast with Marx's conception of the whole of society owning and planning production collectively. You are describing a more Anarchist configuration of society than Marxist. Workers having control of the Means of Production was never meant to be focused on local levels, but broad, societal scales, and while democratic input is necessary, moving beyond the anarchy of production was a requirement.
Solidarity was a US-backed anti-Socialist movement. It worked against the working class and for the petite bourgeoisie.
Planners are not a separate class. Class is not based on hierarchy, but ownership. You are speaking as an Anarchist, not a Marxist. The Marxian basis of class analysis is based on ownership, not simple "power," otherwise managers would be a separate class. Read Critique of the Gotha Programme and
... show more
No, Marx did not focus on workers managing their own workplaces. This stands in stark contrast with Marx's conception of the whole of society owning and planning production collectively. You are describing a more Anarchist configuration of society than Marxist. Workers having control of the Means of Production was never meant to be focused on local levels, but broad, societal scales, and while democratic input is necessary, moving beyond the anarchy of production was a requirement.
Solidarity was a US-backed anti-Socialist movement. It worked against the working class and for the petite bourgeoisie.
Planners are not a separate class. Class is not based on hierarchy, but ownership. You are speaking as an Anarchist, not a Marxist. The Marxian basis of class analysis is based on ownership, not simple "power," otherwise managers would be a separate class. Read Critique of the Gotha Programme and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific if you want to learn more about how Marx and Engels envisioned Socialism and Communism as economically planned.
As for purges and the cultural revolution, liberalism and fascism were oppressed, as well as those seeking to move from a Socialist system collectively owned and planned to a more petite bourgeois mode of production based on councils. Anti-Dühring shows Engels going against such a systen, as it isn't really based on Marxist class analysis. This isn't giving workers more control, it's removing the ability of workers to have an input on the broader economy in favor of increasing local input, which goes against Communism as collective and equal ownership over all of production.
The problems thus far are fairly apparent, you appear to be ascribing anarchist principles to Marx and as such see actually existing Marxist ideas as "betrayals" of such an anarchist ideal.
Marx’s vision focused on collective ownership and planning by society as a whole, not local control by individual workplaces. Workers should manage production collectively, as a class, not in isolated units, which is more in line with anarchism.
Solidarity was a workers' movement, and its contradictions and external influences didn’t change its core goal of improving worker conditions.
Planners don't create a new class as long as they serve collective ownership. Marx’s focus was on ensuring collective control, not creating a separate managerial class.
The purges and Cultural Revolution on paper aimed at suppressing reactionary forces, but sometimes limited workers’ ability to influence the economy. Protecting socialism doesn't come at the expense of worker participation.
Marxism supports centralized planning by the working class, while anarchism favors local autonomy. Marx's approach is about centralizing control for equality, not decentralizing into smaller units.
Solidarity was a Capitalist-backed anti-Socialist movement, just because workers participated didn't make it in the interests of the workers.
Planners in AES serve collective ownership, I already gave you a couple books to read on to show this is the case. You can continue to assert the opposite, and you'll continue to be wrong.
More than anything, your definition of Socialism appears to be "executes Marxist principles perfectly and without flaw," which is dogmatism and anti-Materialist. This is the biggest error, and why in your eyes Socialism will likely never exist. The thing is, Marx himself would laugh at that notion.
My comments consistently reject perfectionism and dogmatism, focusing instead on grounding socialism in Marxist principles. Claiming that recognizing AES’s contradictions means believing socialism can’t exist is simply false. Whether someone agrees or not is irrelevant. This is commentary, not an effort to convert anyone.
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. "State Capitalism" refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn't democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that "true" socialism doesn't have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of "Marxism" has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while A
... show more
You claim this but your comments prove the opposite.
You fail to correctly analyze classes. "State Capitalism" refers to ownership by a bourgeois state, not a proletarian state, and in the USSR production was not done for the profits of individual owners of the economy, as it was collectively owned and managed.
You firmly reject new information. This is an approach that goes against Dialectical Materialism. In your assertion that planning in the USSR wasn't democratic, I linked 2 clear resources proving that it was and describing how. You ignored them entirely, proving more interest in arguing than coming to a mutual understanding.
You make the anti-Marxist, dogmatic assertion that "true" socialism doesn't have contradictions. To the contrary, even Communism will have contradictions, but over long periods of time these contradictions are worked out.
Marxism is about changing the world through understanding it. Your unique, particular form of "Marxism" has achieved no revolutions and no improvements for the working class, while AES states stand as clear examples of working class victories.
You draw hard lines where they don't exist. You failed to explain how the Soviet Democratic model stands in contrast to Marx and Engels in any material way, just vague assertions otherwise.
Overall, critique is important, but more than for criticism itself. Critique is important if correctly applied to what worked and what did not, and is only further useful if it is actionable. It appears your critique is for the sake of critique, which explains the lack of any common agreements with other Marxists and the apparent lack of org affiliation.
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself
... show more
State capitalism, as Lenin explained, can be a transitional phase under a proletarian state. However, AES states developed bureaucratic classes managing production, diverging from Marx’s idea of collective control by the working class (Critique of the Gotha Programme).
I do not reject evidence but consider contradictions. AES planning excluded workers from real decision-making, violating Marx’s principle of collective worker control (The Civil War in France).
I never claimed socialism must be flawless. Marx recognized contradictions exist in all stages.
Revolutions prove nothing without examining their results. AES states stabilized under bureaucratic control, sidelining the working class, which Marx and Engels warned against (The Communist Manifesto).
Marx and Engels envisioned workers directly controlling production. The USSR’s soviets were subordinated to a centralized bureaucracy, diverging from this vision (The State and Revolution).
These comments are rooted in Marxism’s principle: the working class must emancipate itself.
It might be valuable to try to be mindful of the displayed habit of repeatedly misrepresenting what is written, either purposefully or out of misunderstanding. This distorts and distracts from the actual topic and makes for a standoffish look.
Sometimes, considering a broader perspective rather than adhering to a rigid viewpoint, even when it feels like it has all the answers you're looking for, can help break free from those cognitive dissonance patterns.
You're doing that thing again where you provide no evidence for this "beaurocratic class" existing as a class, and refuse to read evidence to the contrary. Moreover, having upper level officials within the Proletariat, as AES has, is not an issue, but a requirement for large industry as Engels already espoused.
Please do some genuine consideration for why your views might be considered extremely fringe among Marxists globally, to not do so is to assert that your opinion is superior to that of hundreds of millions of working Marxists that build Socialism in the real world.
Those can be good! But you really should read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they have some great works. Funny enough, Mao took a lot of inspiration from Anarchism as well, even though he was still a Marxist-Leninist.
Im not personally a fan of the entire concept, I dont belive a vanguard is necessary and in many cases actively harmful. State socialism is very easily corrupted and imo the state should not own the means of production.
The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn't need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
So, the question in my opinion isn't if the vanguard is necessary, it's if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarch
... show more
The way I see it, and the way Lenin outlined it, the Vanguard is just the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. It doesn't need to be formalized to be a vanguard, all revolutionary classes will have a segment that is generally the most advanced, the generally most backwards, and the average between them. The benefit of formalizing the vanguard is that it can be structured and organized democratically, the consequence of not formalizing the vanguard is to ensure unaccountability. A good essay on this concept from the feminist movement is The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
So, the question in my opinion isn't if the vanguard is necessary, it's if formalizing it is necessary, and history has shown that formalized Vanguards have resulted in longer lasting success and more efficient work. As for State Socialism, I think this is a difference in goals. Marxists want a fully publicly owned and planned global economy, Anarchists want a fully horizontalized and decentralized network of cells such as cooperatives or communes. The Marxist critique of the Anarchist model is that that doesn't actually abolish classes, as it turns everyone into Petite Bourgeoisie interested in the success of their own unit more than the global economy. This goal and critique precedes Lenin, and originates with Marx and Engels.
During the years in which the women’s liberation movement has been taking shape, a great emphasis has been placed on what are called leaderless, structureless groups as the main — if not sole — organizational form of the movement.
Imo the free market will always be more effective than state planning. Also under a syndicalist economy syndicates mostly work with eachother than against eachother. Im personally an Anarcho Syndicalist, I belive that whats good for the syndicates translates into direct benefit for the workers and by extension society as a whole.
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you're interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there's no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely symp
... show more
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you're interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there's no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don't expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it's worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I'll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I'll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!
It's time to read theory, comrades! As Lenin says, "Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." Reading theory helps us identify the core contradictions within modern society, analyze their trajectories, and gives us the tools to break free. Marxism-Leninism is broken into 3 major components, as noted by Lenin in his pamphlet The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism: | Audiobook
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Critique of Capitalism along the lines of Marx's Law of Value
Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
As such, I created the following list to take you from no knowledge whatsoever of Leftist theory, and leave you with a strong understanding of the critical fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism in an order that builds up as you read. Let's get started!
Section I: Getting Started
What the heck is Communism, anyways? For that matter, what is fascism?
Breaks down fascism and its mortal enemy, Communism, as well as their antagonistic relationship. Understanding what fascism is, where and when it rises, why it does so, and how to banish it forever is critical. Parenti also helps debunk common anti-Communist myths, from both the "left" and the right, in a quick-witted writing style. This is also an excellent time to watch the famous speech.
Section II: Historical and Dialectical Materialism
By far my favorite primer on Marxist philosophy. By understanding Dialectical and Historical Materialism first, you make it easier to understand the rest of Marxism-Leninism. Don't be intimidated!
Further reading on Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but crucially introduces the why of Scientific Socialism, explaining how Capitalism itself prepares the conditions for public ownership and planning by centralizing itself into monopolist syndicates. This is also where Engels talks about the failures of previous "Utopian" Socialists.
Section III: Political Economy
That's right, it's time for the Law of Value and a deep-dive into Imperialism. If we are to defeat Capitalism, we must learn it's mechanisms, tendencies, contradictions, and laws.
Best taken as a pair, these essays simplify the most important parts of the Law of Value. Marx is targetting those not trained in economics here, but you might want to keep a pen and some paper to follow along if you are a visual person.
Absolutely crucial and the most important work for understanding the modern era and its primary contradictions. Marxist-Leninists understand that Imperialism is the greatest contradiction in the modern era, which cascades downward into all manner of related contradictions. Knowing what dying Capitalism looks like, and how it behaves, means we can kill it.
Section IV: Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism
Can we defeat Capitalism at the ballot box? What about just defeating fascism? What about the role of the state?
If Marxists believed reforming Capitalist society was possible, we would be the first in line for it. Sadly, it isn't possible, which Luxemburg proves in this monumental writing.
Excellent refutation of revisionists and Social Democrats who think the State can be reformed, without needing to be replaced with one that is run by the workers, in their own interests.
Section V: Intersectionality and Solidarity
The revolution will not be fought by atomized individuals, but by an intersectional, international working class movement. Intersectionality is critical, because it allows different marginalized groups to work together in collective interest, unifying into a broad movement.
Critical reading on understanding misogyny, transphobia, enbyphobia, pluralphobia, and homophobia, as well as how to move beyond the base subject of "gender." Uses the foundations built up in the previous works to analyze gender theory from a Historical Materialist perspective.
De-colonialism is essential to Marxism. Without having a strong, de-colonial, internationalist stance, we have no path to victory nor a path to justice. Fanon analyzes Colonialism's dehumanizing effects, and lays out how to form a de-colonial movement, as well as its necessity.
Solidarity and intersectionality are the key to any social movement. When different social groups fight for liberation together along intersectional lines, the movements are emboldened and empowered ever-further.
Section VI: Putting it into Practice!
It's not enough to endlessly read, you must put theory to practice. That is how you can improve yourself and the movements you support. Touch grass!
Mao wrote simply and directly, targeting peasant soldiers during the Revolutionary War in China. This pair of essays equip the reader with the ability to apply the analytical tools of Dialectical Materialism to their every day practice, and better understand problems.
Congratulations, you completed your introductory reading course!
With your new understanding and knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, here is a mini What is to be Done? of your own to follow, and take with you as practical advice.
Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to us to protect ourselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it.
Read theory. Don't think that you are done now! Just because you have the basics, doesn't mean you know more than you do. If you have not investigated a subject, don't speak on it! Don't speak nonsense, but listen!
Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground, let nobody be forgotten or left behind. There is strength in numbers, when one marginalized group is targeted, many more are sure to follow.
Be industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well.
Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. Liberals will not save us, we must save each other.
Be persistent. If you feel like a single water droplet against a mountain, think of canyons and valleys. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.
"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."
They were probably very shocked that Europe( Britain, France, Fascist Italy etc) allowed Nazi Germany and Poland to annex and divide Czechoslovakia between themselves. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich…
I'm also glad that the soviets still chose to be overall decent even after things like that.
I think it's fine to use unique platform features like this, but if you're actually using this actively, be aware that not everyone will see your titles as you intended them. It's only Lemmy users that can see it actually render "properly", everyone else just sees the plaintext Markdown symbols.
Be careful of the character limit on each viewer, as they can "trim" your title in the middle of some markup tag and just display part of it as the title.
You can, but maybe you shouldn't. Given that this post is in the fediverse community, I don't feel too bad about mentioning that Lemmy is part of a federated network with PieFed and MBIN (I try not to bollock on too much about the platform I happen to be using).
In the ActivityPub JSON for this post, there is no indication that this field contains MarkDown. If anything, it says the opposite, it says it contains HTML. It's therefore not unreasonable for other platforms to render it as such.
Given this, and the poor support for mobile clients indicated in the comments, and the fact that it's only a subset of MarkDown tags, but include ones that aren't part of CommonMark standard, I'd argue that it's not necessarily a good idea.
Another commenter (who's contributed code to Lemmy) pointed to a link that provides the specification for that field: "A simple, human-readable, plain-text name for the object. HTML markup MUST NOT be included."
So in this case, it's more that the JSON looks a bit ambiguous: 'mediaType' is only referring to the format of the text in a post's body, but - unlike me - you'd also need to be aware of the spec to know that it doesn't apply to the title.
In the ActivityPub JSON for this post, there is no indication that this field contains MarkDown. If anything, it says the opposite, it says it contains HTML. It’s therefore not unreasonable for other platforms to render it as such.
Actually, the name property is explicitly plain text, it shouldn't contain any type of markup, whether that be markdown or HTML.
For clarity, I wasn't intending to say that PieFed treats that field as HTML (it treats it as text), I just meant that if you were looking at that JSON, and being a bit lazy like me and not looking at specs, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the 'mediaType' field also refers to 'name' (rather than a 'content' field which this post doesn't happen to have).
Anyway, this seems to be even more reason why MD shouldn't be put in titles, and front-ends shouldn't be encouraging the practise by rendering it.
Also, this gives me real text-on-image-in-Facebook-post-just-to-get-noticed vibes.
If everybody can use Markdown in their post titles, then everybody will use Markdown in their post titles, until it's a mess of colors, bold, and italics.
Markdown is plain text, so it's fine to go in the field. It's also fine for apps to allow OP's post to look like garbage because there's no requirement for support.
A comment here distinguishes between the 'plain text' that's allowed by the spec, and MarkDown as a markup language (it's confusingly named, I guess, but that's what Wikipedia categorises it as too)
In the ActivityPub JSON for this post, there is no indication that this field contains MarkDown. If anything, it says the opposite, it says it contains HTML. It’s therefore not unreasonable for other platforms to render it as such.
Actually, the name property is explicitly plain text, it shouldn't contain any type of markup, whether that be markdown or HTML.
I still have installed a dozen or so clients, so I opened Voyager to remind myself what it is in comparison to Jerboa, which is also my preferred client.
Suddenly my android device has an iOS user interface. To me, this is lazy development. I'm sure it's fine for someone accustomed to it, but even having a static header and footer seem out of date.
Five Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed and 10 others were wounded in northern Gaza on Monday, the military said, raising Israel’s toll in over 15 months of fighting in the Strip to 407.
The army said the troops were killed during operations in northern Gaza’s Beit Hanoun, but offered no other details about the incident that led to their deaths. Another 10 soldiers were injured, eight of them seriously.
DOHA/CAIRO, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Mediators gave Israel and Hamas a final draft of a deal on Monday to end the war in Gaza, an official briefed on the negotiations said, after a midnight "breakthrough" in talks attended by envoys of both outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump.
An Israeli official said negotiations were in advanced stages for the release of up to 33 hostages as part of the deal. The Hamas delegation in Doha issued a statement after a meeting with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani saying talks were progressing well.
I think people who say that are thinking "ACAB" means "every single one is a bad person" (an easy to disprove hyperbole) instead of "it's literally their job to reinforce the current system, which is broken"
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Truth is, we cannot be certain Mark Zuckerberg fucked an ostrich. The only thing we can be certain of is that his mother very clearly fucked an ostrich and/or was herself an ostrich.
tldr, it's a new foundation launching with an open letter signed by:
Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia
Shoshana Zuboff, Professor Emerita, Harvard Business School and author of ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’
Mark Ruffalo, Actor
Alex Winter, Actor and filmmaker
Audrey Tang, Former Minister of Digital Affairs, Taiwan
Roger McNamee, Businessman and author of ‘Zucked’
Brian Eno, Musician
Carole Cadwalladr, Investigative journalist
Cory Doctorow, Blogger and journalist
Akilah Hughes, Writer and comedian
Sebastian Soriano, Former Chairman, Arcep
Rosie Boycott, Member, UK House of Lords
Alexandra Geese, Member of the European Parliament, Greens/EFA
...
Bluesky has expressed a clear interest in public governance of the protocol they have developed. We are establishing a Foundation to help steward this process, to ensure that the AT Protocol remains capture-resistant and is instead governed in line with a thriving public interest and open community.
Free Our Feeds: "it will take independent funding and governance to turn Bluesky’s underlying tech—the AT Protocol—into something more powerful than a single app"
tldr, it's a new foundation launching with an open letter signed by:
Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia
Shoshana Zuboff, Professor Emerita, Harvard Business School and author of ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’
Mark Ruffalo, Actor
Alex Winter, Actor and filmmaker
Audrey Tang, Former Minister of Digital Affairs, Taiwan
Roger McNamee, Businessman and author of ‘Zucked’
Brian Eno, Musician
Carole Cadwalladr, Investigative journalist
Cory Doctorow, Blogger and journalist
Akilah Hughes, Writer and comedian
Sebastian Soriano, Former Chairman, Arcep
Rosie Boycott, Member, UK House of Lords
Alexandra Geese, Member of the European Parliament, Greens/EFA
...
Bluesky has expressed a clear interest in public governance of the protocol they have developed. We are establishing a Foundation to help steward this process, to ensure that the AT Protocol remains capture-resistant and is instead governed in line with a thriving public interest and open community.
Theoretically, not really. Realistically, no not at all. My understanding, being corporately backed. They want every server to host everything. So that they theoretically have access to everything to datamine and advertise on. In the fediverse. You can see and interact with all the content. But your server doesn't aggregate it unless you interact. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Basically what this means, is that you could spin up and host your mastodon or Lemmy server on an SBC laying in a drawer spare. Somewhat like Action Retro did with bitbang.social. If you want to run a bsky server. Theoretically you can. You will just need quite a lot of storage, bandwidth, and server hardware. Activity Pub is decentralized. The AT protocol technically can be decentralized in a way. But not really.
they didn't do it that way for no reason though, and they did do some stuff to alleviate the problems it causes.
it allows for better discoverability, no missing comments in threads, good global search, ect. Basically solves most all of the papercuts the fediverse has.
there isn't a "server" you host, per se. There are 3 components, the appview (ui, self-explanatory) and decides how your algorithm is, the relay (hard to run, does the federation and outputs everything it sees as a "firehose") and the pds (personal data server), which hosts account data and is the "home" for your account. I host my own pds, and you can migrate your account between pds's. The only hard part to run is the relay.
you can just run another one, currently nobody does but if the main relay gets bought out, the community can band together to run one, it's a couple hundred bucks a month, expensive, but not unsustainable.
Decentralized in theory, but not in practice is just centralized.
Also:
So how challenging is it to run those? In July 2024, running a Relay on ATProto already required 1 terabyte of storage. But more alarmingly, just a four months later in November 2024, running a relay now requires approximately 5 terabytes of storage
The likely answer to this is that there will always have to be a large corporation at the heart of Bluesky/ATProto, and the network will have to rely on that corporation to do the work of abuse mitigation, particularly in terms of illegal content and spam. This may be a good enough solution for Bluesky's purposes, but on the economics alone it's going to be a centralized system that relies on trusting centralized authorities.
The thing is, the discoverability issue on the fediverse disappears if we stop treating it like it's a centealized space. Everything looks the same, and everything uses the visual language of centralized social media. And we encourage people to "join Mastodon" or "join Lemmy", which is like saying "join WordPress" and "join Joomla".
We need to be promoting specific websites that people can join, for the reason of wanting to communicate with people on those websites. We need to treat federation as a value-add, not the whole damn value proposition.
They mention ActivityPub in a few places, such as this blog post.
But I'd recommend dustycloud.org/blog/how-decent… instead, which is the best discussion I've seen so far of the pros and cons of each of the two approaches.
In my opinion, yes, the why does in fact matter. This blog post i've linked in other comments in this thread is by one of the authors of the ActivityPub spec. If you care enough to comment about it i recommend reading her analysis of what AT Proto gets right and wrong in comparison with ActivityPub.
We're still left with multiple competing standards that then need maintainers for the bridges. IMO if we want to truly break from the walled gardens of yore a single federation standard would be more helpful towards that goal. Its cool they want to build Twitter 2. Thats not what most of us on the fediverse are looking forward to tho.
The likely answer to this is that there will always have to be a large corporation at the heart of Bluesky/ATProto, and the network will have to rely on that corporation to do the work of abuse mitigation, particularly in terms of illegal content and spam. This may be a good enough solution for Bluesky's purposes, but on the economics alone it's going to be a centralized system that relies on trusting centralized authorities.
Reading through it, I'm not seeing much in favor of ATP. It basically says ATP will never be decentralised. What exactly are the points you're trying to make here?
Reading through it, I’m not seeing much in favor of ATP
See the "BlueSky's strengths" section, particularly the last paragraph of it. Content addressability is absolutely essential for building something that will last, and BlueSky gets that right. Decoupling the many responsibilities which an ActivityPub instance operator has (especially for identity) is also essential, i think, and while BlueSky's identity solution is less than ideal it's much better than ActivityPub and I expect it to improve.
If you're interested in the topic you probably want to also read the followup post from the same author (after reading the linked reply from someone on the BlueSky team).
Christine's analysis is by far the best I've read on the topic, but I think she is too dismissive of the possibility that people will actually build things using ATP in a manner more like ActivityPub (where there doesn't need to be a global view). It's also poss
... show more
Reading through it, I’m not seeing much in favor of ATP
See the "BlueSky's strengths" section, particularly the last paragraph of it. Content addressability is absolutely essential for building something that will last, and BlueSky gets that right. Decoupling the many responsibilities which an ActivityPub instance operator has (especially for identity) is also essential, i think, and while BlueSky's identity solution is less than ideal it's much better than ActivityPub and I expect it to improve.
If you're interested in the topic you probably want to also read the followup post from the same author (after reading the linked reply from someone on the BlueSky team).
Christine's analysis is by far the best I've read on the topic, but I think she is too dismissive of the possibility that people will actually build things using ATP in a manner more like ActivityPub (where there doesn't need to be a global view). It's also possible/likely that ActivityPub will eventually evolve to adopt content addressability (Christine actually built a proof-of-concept of doing that years ago, linked in her blog post, but there doesn't appear to be any recent progress in that direction), and decouple identity from responsibility for data availability, and adopt something like BlueSky's composable moderation.
Given their respective advantages over the other, i'm pretty sure that both ATP and AP will make changes which make them more like the other in the coming years.
Whatever reason they don't isn't a very good one when there's already excuses being made around AT proto not being scalable beyond a single app.
ActivityPub works today and we are using it right now. There's basically no incentive to make a new protocol if you aren't willing to support more than 1 platform that uses it.
I'm not even a bluesky hater, but you have to question why they're choosing to reinvent the wheel other than disliking the lack of agency that comes with making a (essentially) proprietary protocol. You have to wonder if they ever truly plan to federated at all or if it's all just lip-service.
Or you can bridge your account using bridgyfed and be on both with one account. This what I’m currently doing to access some a bluesky and make some of it accessible to me on mastodon. I really wish more people on bluesky would opt into the bridge at least, technology connections is one of the few that are interesting that have bridged. (He was on mastodon but decided to forego that to just bridge his bluesky account to the fediverse
Is there any instance other than Bluesky where people can register?
There aren't "instances" in the ActivityPub sense, where "instance" means single point of failure you're married to (its name is literally part of your identity) which is simultaneously responsible for keeping your data available and curating your view of the rest of the network; AT Protocol decomposes these responsibilities so that they can be delegated independently to different operators.
There are many people running their own Personal Data Servers, AppViews, Labelers, and Feed Generators, but I'm not aware of anybody else running a large-scale Relay yet (which is one of the things this new foundation says they are planning to work on). I'm also not sure if you can actually create a did:plc using a self-hosted AppView or if maybe you need to use did:web to create a new identity without using their AppView currently.
The AT Protocol is made up of a bunch of pieces that stack together. Federation means that anyone can run the parts that make up the AT Protocol themselves, such as their own server.
I’m not aware of anybody else running a large-scale Relay yet (which is one of the things this new foundation says they are planning to work on).
The fact that there still isn't any other relay besides thé Bluesky one isn't a good sign. If cost of running it is so high, how are enthusiast supposed to be able to run their own, and thus "own the town square"?
They can't. At some point you have to wonder if this is a feature not a bug. You'll always be beholden to the largesse of millionaires. Whether that's a charity or not.
There are multiple other relays running, and its pretty cheap nowadays, lowest I've seen is someone running a full network non-archive relay for 23usd/month
Very interesting, thanks! Is it possible for people to register on that relay?
(if I understand correctly) you don't register on a relay, you register on a PDS (which you can easily self-host on a small computer at home). But, to register with a PDS, you need a DID, and to interoperate with the rest of bluesky it needs to be using one of their two currently-supported DID methods: either did:web or did:plc. The former is a thing which you can create using a domain you control, which gives you an identity that you lose control of when you lose control of that domain. The latter is the actually-centralized "placeholder" DID method implemented by an append-only log operated by BlueSky PBC, which is what most people are actually using. I'm not sure if/how you can create a
... show more
Very interesting, thanks! Is it possible for people to register on that relay?
(if I understand correctly) you don't register on a relay, you register on a PDS (which you can easily self-host on a small computer at home). But, to register with a PDS, you need a DID, and to interoperate with the rest of bluesky it needs to be using one of their two currently-supported DID methods: either did:web or did:plc. The former is a thing which you can create using a domain you control, which gives you an identity that you lose control of when you lose control of that domain. The latter is the actually-centralized "placeholder" DID method implemented by an append-only log operated by BlueSky PBC, which is what most people are actually using. I'm not sure if/how you can create a did:plc without first creating an account on a bsky.app PDS, but you can migrate it to your own PDS after creating one there. or, you can use did:web and rely on your domain name registration instead of their centralized log.
Pistcow
in reply to Garibaldee • • •reallykindasorta
in reply to Pistcow • • •Top State Dept. Official Resigns Over “Immensely Disappointing” Israel Policy
Sharon Zhang (Truthout)like this
metaStatic likes this.