100s of people visit this site daily primarily for this post. People have gotten conditioned to look for posts and videos titled "top 10 .... distros " "top 20 best ...." "top 5 worst ... " and save themselves of setting their own criteria and benchmarks. With distros 9 out of 10, if not much more, every single one on those top lists are systemd distros, with tiny insignificant differences between them. What is so different between debian, any xxxxbuntu (customized debian) and mint (another customized debian), or even fedora and debian? Not much, systemd doesn't allow much of a difference.

Top 5 political parties in Europe? All pro-capitalist! Top 2 parties in the US, pro-capitalist. Top 2 parties in the UK, pro-capitalist. Russia, S.Korea, may have an anti-capitalist party within the top 5, or latin-American, or African countries that do allow "parties".

Media, on the net, although appear to be more democratic and accessible to people, have provided such an abundance of information and sources, that the only thing you can afford to search for is "top 5 most popular" must be the best.

Even when people by mistake end up reading more valuable than misleading information, the top 5 most popular still sticks in. It is a very special kind of person and thought process that is looking for less popular to locate what is of interest.

The idea behind this blog was to help create a community, not among the hundreds that visit, but by the few that couldn't care less about popular choices, but what really fits them and their mindset. Unfortunately those that do end up meeting try to form a personal relationship 1 to 1 with the author, not among them as equals. And in this respect sysdfree has failed miserably.

A community failing without a clue on what can be done differently. Those distro managers didn't form a community by being on the list, maybe a small connection between Obarun and AntiX was formed but didn't bare much fruit.

In any case, thanks friend for still caring.

I personally not only don't like Gnome, or KDE/plasma, I find any desktop a waste of time and resources, just to present the illusion of using alternative MS-win.

If you like GNOME and KDE but you don’t like systemd,** you must use elogind, **which is, by the way, a free (as in freedom) fork of logins; I do believe that is a reasonable compromise… 

#Obarun for the past 8-9 years that I know of has offered turnkey installations of Plasma desktop without elogind. So if it worked for Obarun it should work anywhere, I would think.

Lies and rumors are spread easier on the net than actual facts, thanks to commercial "rags" (trade media paid WELL by ads and "support") for which the corporations such as IBM/RH, Qt, Oracle, etc. have plenty to give out.

If you just examine the mechanism of running a logind (login daemon) the difference in resources for that isolated system together with dbus and the like is unquestionably inferior. It is exponentially more inferior then to run the service/daemon/logging with systemd itself than with an archaic service manager as OpenRC/Sysvinit or with something more efficient like runit/s6.

All this headache just so when you click at a desktop menu to run an application as a system user you can, instead of entering in the terminal sudo/doas gparted, or making your own menu with gsudo and such.

#Slackware and others had claimed that #consolekit2 was abandoned, because #gentoo abandoned it. BSDs use consolekit as well, and when something needs patching they issue them and they get backported into the linux fork. Last was the gdbus bullshit that declared a systemd version somewhere in desktops. If that wasn't an intentional useless implementation I don't know what is.

Free and Open by multinational corporations who make the mafia to appear ethically like they are Buddhist monks. Free as in linux lead by to racist/nationalists making 6 digit salaries to produce the kernel all paid directly by a handful of US based multinational corporations.

It is an insult to the word freedom to consider such tachniques of conquering and controlling foss systems by corporations. If I was to fork and rebrand systemd into crapD today, there will be very few people even willing to try it. When facebook purchased and furnished zstd as its first and only free/open code contributions, most distributions run and adopted it, publishing lies about xz as their support for changing.
It is now default compressing sw within the kernel.

The corporate attempts to introduce trojan horses to control foss and be able to affect all systems at any given moment is sickening. Particularly because people just don't get it reproducing lies and myths.

How many times in the past decade were there major security violations discovered and those "corporate" projects just said ..... "oops ... sorry ..." and kept on going like nothing happened? Remember speck?

Like I said, morally/ethically even mafia thugs are superior to those Wall Street gangsters.

False identities and false fronts, in real life politics and in software politics. " We are all here against MS-Windows and that is what unites us. "

Between MS, Oracle, IBM, Qt, HP, which football team are you with? I'd rather go with Dynamo-Stalingrad than those gangsters. Even if and when I get banned by every m-l lemmy server I wrote 2 comments on.

Yeah, may be wiser to drop the loser's script that's self-fulfilling-prophesying and reaffirming the dire prognosis, and start defying the dire prognosis, and doing that which mends.

Would be a silly squander. All that potential. Lost. Just because we let parasitic monopoly kakastarchically end us in suppression of the means of thriving. And there is so much means. Agnotology industry keeping paradise potentials away from us. As much as we know not how much damage capitalism is really doing, we also know not how much potential to mend it has been suppressed. Beyond that, we have so much headroom.

Glorious that we see as much of emancipatory technologies, as Free Software. There's still more.

... and as GNOME have shown... it merely being Free Software, is perhaps not sufficient alone. The first step to liberating cyberspace, must be followed by another step. I often say that next step need be some kind of evocation of pedagogy. Maybe that'd do it, or maybe something else is needed to help prevent myopic engineers in social-consequence ignorance "improving" (breaking) things, casting doom on a hundred generations by their crimes... like getting rid of middle click paste.

n_n

@herve_02 diasporasocial.net/posts/47093…

"The end is near" came from foundamentalist christians who predicted the end was coming due to humanity's sins. The ecosystem collapse comes from undisputable scientific findings, which apart from the climate everyone is focusing on, especially warming of the atmosphere due to methane and carbon oxide deposit increases, it mainly has to do with deforestation, bio-diversity, and already many more species of all forms of live vanishing than new ones appearing.

The climate part has received focus from the political and corporate media elites due to it being "hopefully" managed within capitalism. The rest is solely due to capitalism. Industrial agriculture and mining being the prime offenders, whose effect is also deforestation.

Those who think there will be technological solutions within capitalism that will address the problem when realized are just as religious freaks as those in monk robes walking around with "The end is near " images.cartoonstock.com/lowres…

Prectically no matter what the damage is done, it is hard to conceive a solution. If capitalism/industrial development was to halt we would be buying some more time before the collapse. The last few forests remaining are not enough to avert the catasrrophe. If all human activity would cease and humans moved to a different planet, there may be a chance after centuries for the ecosystem to recover.

Only those studying and practicing permaculture can understand in practical terms how condemned we are.
On the other hand capitalism has been set to be sustainable economically if there is continuous and constant "development". With a static production/consumption flows capitalism dies/died. State capitalism is not that different although not as dynamic.

The most dangerous of all lies and fallacies trending now is electric-vehicles ... this is an accelerator to catastrophe.

There is a lot of truth on what digit says and implies. There have been certain policies, measures, practices, that couldn't have been mistakes, the knowledge was wide-spread and available, but what was pursued had an end result of reducing community autonomy, peoples sustainability with least environmental impact. Because people depending on industrial "feed" are more manageable, controllable, and exploitable. One of the reasons there was coercion for people to gather up in urban centers was so they rely on economic mechanisms for survival, and by proxy authorize the exploitation of resources and people in rural communities. Even when industrial explosion in the "west" dwindled in the 70s, urbanization continued, in Europe, N.America.

The IMF/WB/IBRD had paid and sent a research team to investigate deforestation in the Amazon to create agricultural land and move people there. The reports were extremely negative, for vegetation, for domesticated animals, even for the health of humans. After the report was produced, published by the bank, the decision was green light for that disaster to take place. In the short end it was even worse than predicted, people lost everything they had and run back to the cities, didn''t even take their personal belongings and tools, animals died, and the deforested area became a desert with only non-edible weeds and dangerous insects. And of course the much desired bankruptcy of Brazil came soon after, so multinationals jumped in and conquered resources. Slams of mass poverty and violence in every city, authorities treating people like trash on a landfill.

Tesla voters driving their 300KW marvel to the donut drivethrough think they are saving the planet and their furor says electric output should double and coal is good and should be used.

THE END
was near

“The end is near” came from foundamentalist christians who predicted the end was coming due to humanity’s sins. The ecosystem collapse comes from undisputable scientific findings, which apart from the climate everyone is focusing on, especially warming of the atmosphere due to methane and carbon oxide deposit increases, it mainly has to do with deforestation, bio-diversity, and already many more species of all forms of live vanishing than new ones appearing.

To that list, I'd add near the top, the novel noxia pollution, many of which are "forever chemicals", that the coercive incentivised externality flippant capitalist race to the bottom is accelerating in both quantity and diversity... over 2000 new chemical pollutants a day, iirc, and increasing, and increasing the rate of increase, curving up...

Those who think there will be technological solutions within capitalism that will address the problem when realized are just as religious freaks as those in monk robes walking around with "The end is near "

mhmm. the cognitively dissonant delusion that the market will save us.

leaving it without wise intervention:

... takes money to make money.
... money is power.
... power corrupts.

leading to a consolidation of wealth, power, and corrupts, to the max. lessaiz-faire, capitalism, monopolism, kakistarchy, it's all the same mechanistic slide, worsening the tragedy of the commons, with its proposal of parasitism as solution, and the only solution allowed, because of course, the only other alternative is totalitarianism, or, in their mcarthianised orwellian lingo, "communism". a term which, in most painful irony, was originally coined by the anarchists. anarcho-communism being the "real" communism, but good luck trying communicate that past all the totalitarian appropriation of the term and all the well programmed memetic fallacy reflex many retort, scoffing, as if that ideological drift authoritarianwards (e.g. the tankies' self-contradictory cry of "well then we'll make them free") on the left were inevitable, while ignoring the mechanistic inevitability of the tyranny of the barons, the oligarchs, the monopolists, the corporatists, the fascists, on the right... which i still keep trying to find from ancaps how it is they think the freedom the idealise to start from there would not drift to consolidation of power over others leading to a loss of freedom... yet to hear better than "more sharks".

Prectically no matter what the damage is done, it is hard to conceive a solution. If capitalism/industrial development was to halt we would be buying some more time before the collapse.

perhaps industrial development can be better curated... perhaps we're already in the burgeouning learnings towards that, with poptential augments from advances in machine learning and so on... but again, still in the problem of the power-hoarding prevailing-paradigm protectionism, perverting the potential back into its own circular reasoned preservation, scared of the psychopathic circlejerk's game theory fail of parasitism in the commons, tragically racing us to the bottom. ... much the same vibe as the likes of musk being our savior by doing what the menace was doing, but even faster than they were... if you believe the narratives at that layer of the onion of plato's caves within plato's caves... rather than acknowledging the attercoparchical military-industrial-complex context...

... sorry, rambled digression. was just gonna say, perhaps some kind of separation of capitalism and industrial development, serves as a prominent ingredient in the solution. and in various forms other than the false dichotomies we're oft presented with to manipulate us back into the arms of our abuser. other forms, such as decentralised efforts, such as writing your own software and releasing it with a copyleft license,

y'know, rather than a halt.

what form a halt takes, sounds for sure catastrophic devastating. so much dependence on our abuser... the transition needs care. and that itself needs more support from all around, to ensure not succumbing to the rapid perversions of capital and advertisers... (I say, having been an advertiser, and know what it's like, just doing your job, to the best of your ability, maximally manipulating people's perceptions and preferences and purchases)...

like the last lines of the ST:TNG episode "The Drumhead" say (my emphasis for the explicit relevance here):

Lieutenant Worf: [referring to Admiral Satie] I believed her. I, I helped her. I did not see what she was.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Mister Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
Lieutenant Worf: I think... after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mister Worf - that is the price we have to continually pay.

The last few forests remaining are not enough to avert the catasrrophe.

Have you seen the reforestation projects in the sahara? i mean mainly e.g. the low tech crescent pools method, not necessarily the more grand heavy-tech shiny aproaches. We still have so much headroom, either way, low tech, or both low and high tech. Not if we leave it to crude linear resource extraction and "externalities".

If we take the brakes off cannabis/hemp too, we can 7x our air cleaning over having pine forests everywhere.

... Release the secreted emancipatory technologies, and we can go far further with the high tech. We can build vast forest arcology-scapes... increasing carrying capacity of earth to over 300 trillion humans in vast abundant nature... [not saying that's a target, just saying we have that much headroom and more, if we manage our resources properly]

but indeed, it's how to sublimate to that, with the agnotologically abusive establishment protecting prevention of access or even awareness...

"look at my big bank account, this has to be real", it's just a ride. and we can change it any time we want. ;) (thanks Bill Hicks).

If all human activity would cease and humans moved to a different planet, there may be a chance after centuries for the ecosystem to recover.

Amusingly, many of the same technologies that avail our going elsewhere, are also what help us clean up the mess made here. And certainly obsolete the polluting tech the rentier racketeers scam us with and keep us down and dependent with, making us complicit, under duress, with their ecocide. Free to mend the world, and empowered to do so... sounds good. :)

so much headroom.

Only those studying and practicing permaculture can understand in practical terms how condemned we are.

yeah, maybe keep looking to solutions, rather than chirping defeatism.

specialisation's a special kind of ignorance and arrogance. so many "kept in their lane", to be kept as mere ignorant cogs in the capitalist's machine. mere capita. reduced to units, slave units. because that's what it is. capitalism, is just slavery rebranded. hoodwinking us thinking we're superior when renumerated for doing good, the reductive totalitarianism of money...

A dose or two of The Orville yesterday's a nice reminder there are others out there who get it... how the means of emancipation, get usurped by the slavers to perpetuate the enslavement paradigm... how the means would be there, but a few would hoard the means, in their shortsighted ignorance... lack of spiritual evolution... whatever you want to call it.

Amazing grace may yet strike all those in the system. :) Wouldn't that be nice.

Tesla voters driving their 300KW marvel to the donut drivethrough think they are saving the planet and their furor says electric output should double and coal is good and should be used.

yeah, gives a bad name to clean tech... things like aptera or peter perkins' solar powered van, are nearer a genuine solution space. getting beyond intentionally accelerated "obsolescence" (repurchace), would be good too. imagine building your own adaptable upgradeable conveyance that's built to last forever... imagine a economic system that encourages that, rather than the churning through linear resource extractions...

would be nice if ruthless monopolists could be cured of their toxic maladies. and all the banal obedients just doing their job. tubes, reduced their human potential, to mere pipes and cogs in the machine. the machine that chemically lobotomises them to keep them as slaves in training, depriving them their potential, as polymaths in the making.

heh... just reminded myself where this thread started. ... systemd free.

If I was to find anything to disagree with, hardly, it wouldn't be being a trekie II NG fan. :) On the other hand if there was a way to transport human to another life supporting planet I'd volunteer to do free work for this just so we can take the wealthy and most powerful on earth, and their volunteer subservient supporters, and "ship'em out"!
One way, because they would not be able to figure out how to get back.

:) "sysdfree" when speaking to many (left of parliamentary politics) minded people, is branded and labeled a primitivist, because especially in the left people have developed a categorical system that they can only understand something said by placing the messenger in a little sector of ideology.

The reason machines were made was to take off manual labor pains and to do work (produce) with less human effort. Why they developed and how they developed relates very much to the economic interest of making profit. For good or bad, now we know, how and why to make machines to do work for us. Not a bad thing to know, especially if you have broken knuckles, dislocated limbs and other parts, or even tried to make a shovel with minimal tools with whatever scrap you find around. For a primitivist finding fun in repairing, starting, tuning old machinery and getting excited of the ingenuity of a mass produced component, something is wrong with the framework of categorical thinking of both marxist and anti-authoritarian communists.

If we revert back to the essential question, what kind of community, society, environment, we would want to live in, disreguarding the individualist's wet dream of being alone and free while the totality as one respect's the individual's wet dream, whatever the perceived group is called, there has to be who and how decides for the "commons". If we stand back to our armchairs in the ideological towers and decide how to feed/house/cure/educate the masses we admit in taking authority away from those who have to live by those rules, and decide for them. And homie don't play dat! (did you ever watch homie the clown?)

So if we are not to allow decision makers and decision executers and aim for everyone having the same power to participate and decide on things that matter to the unit (I say community) how do we do that?

What is the maximum number of people that can participate in a process where all decisions must be made, if anything has to be mutually respected and executed? Given that without being prevented some people will say I don't care, I will respect what you decide and help in executing whatever decided, just let me know. Some people just don't like speaking in large groups or debating, or even listening to back-and-forth discussion. Some do.

We then define the unit, that can't have external authority enforced on it, it is autonomous in every way, and relies in defining its own problems and locating its own solutions. We then have to propose a process that ensures the equality of the participants, how an issue gets discussed, and how a decision is made. Looking back to CNT, and libertarian communities who for more than a century have utilized practical experience to come up with very detail proposals on how this is done.

We then realize that some "local" problems are not unique, our need for a shovel, or an earth mover, a grader, a tiller, many other communities have the same need and use, we federate with those in proximity (physical and political) to come up with a common infrastructure to be able to solve our mutual problems in the most efficient way. What we come up with is a federated owned and managed mass production unit. We also see that finding the resources to organize such can not have a negative impact on a single community's environment, it would take a mutual decision on how and where we do this. So we have a federated owned mine to just provide the steel or copper we need, with minimal environmental impact.

What I am trying to say is that if we believe in equality we must start in designing our world from the bottom up, not from top to bottom. If we need nails and screws to build let us decide where and how to manufacture nails and screws, or whether we need them at all.

"No, the scientific elite of kommissars will decide on such important things" ... and how do we recognize this elite of knowitalls? Certified by a central kommissar authority! So the illness is reproduced, private or state kapitalist the pathology is generated from within the replicated institutions of capitalism.

A common example I have used to explain some of this (poor Weber was so injustly condemned by autistic marxists) is the history of the "hospital". The layman thinks a hospital is a building where physicians do their work, and their assistants (nurses and support stuff) under their command run around in circles all day reproducing their tasks. No, it is a social structure, phusicians were rarely ever asked on how to construct and organize a hospital. It is a social organization to address a need. What was the need originally? Back in the early days of capitalism and rapid urbanization, the elite would drive their carriages through town and there was this foul odor of sick and dying men and women on the streets. It was like taking a walk through a battle field the day after. So they "ordered" to have a facility where the sick and the dying were sent to so the streets would look cleaner and smell better.

So what did tankies do? Reproduced this madness and recreated capitalist hospitals disregarding the origins of the decisions and the problems addressed. Before then, physicians went to the elite's home and provided remedies for whatever they were called for.

Reverse the origin and the decision making order of a problem, how do you cure lung disease and suffocation among coal miner communities? Stop working in the freaking coal mine, that's how! The kommissar says have advanced ventilation and filtration systems and a very good pneumonology hospital nearby! Homie don't play dat tankie!

If we can't extract coal in an environmental way, do it in a healthy safe manner, let's not use coal then. Simple!

All my friends enjoying 14k rpm motorcycles with titanium valves, are clueless how LONG it takes to go from surface to the bottom of some S.African mines where tens of thousands of workers in 3-4 shifts a day work. Some are so deep they eat, sleep, and take breaks down there and only come to light once a week. Who decides this?

Jean Luc Pickards and their fat masters.

I am going back to trying to get this old detroit diesel started and moved so it doesn't get cut and scrapped unnecessarily. Those things will run for a century, with my primitivist flag flying high and proud :)

PS I can get this old Briggs & Stratton engine running on CO (carbon monoxide) powering a DC generator, charging some lead batteries, with an inverter (old UPS) if needed, and run a pc board and video screen running #joborun but can't have it run while neighbors in the "community" are asleep.

“ship’em out”!

an idea so bad (such a bad karma authoritarian imposition, a hateful othering), that I nearly didnt bother reading anything further.

What is the maximum number of people that can participate in a process where all decisions must be made, if anything has to be mutually respected and executed?

odd question. why presume a maximum? actively seeking to sabotage development of sufficient facilities? trying add a scare to it? like the whole "direct democracy doesnt work over 200 people" type of dissuasive suggestion?

many systems can be designed, developed, and deployed, and in many instances no such systems even necessary, and do-ocracy can take place.

For good or bad, now we know, how and why to make machines to do work for us. Not a bad thing to know, especially if you have broken knuckles, dislocated limbs and other parts, or even tried to make a shovel with minimal tools with whatever scrap you find around.

daunting thought along with that^... the machine figuring out we get it to do more and grow, and keep it surviving, as a necessity to us, if it keeps breaking our limbs.

once again praying hard for wisdom ahead of cleverness in all the burgeoning "artificial intelligence" space.

If we revert back to the essential question,

which distros are systemd free? ;)

what kind of community, society, environment, we would want to live in,

oh right. ;)

disreguarding the individualist’s wet dream of being alone and free while the totality as one respect’s the individual’s wet dream,

why disregard? why dismissively characterise? ... is not the kind of community, society, environment, we would want to live in, respectful of the individual, even facilitating the individual...

whatever the perceived group is called, there has to be who

does there? why?

and how

i'm more with why, than who, but as a necessity to be decided... still not sure..

decides for

... might that phrasing reveal the decider...

the “commons”.

the commons itself! :) if conjuring a thorough function, I imagine t'would have among its many complex nuance, simply, those affected by, have their say consulted and implemented.

... stuff like that, I imagine I'd put in my "config-democracy" vote, presumably largely as a copy-pasta section, refined by many minds.

If we stand back to our armchairs

I rather like that idea, in "config-democracy" being "e-democracy", eminently capable of facilitating effective armchair political activity.

(Heheh. Undermining the use of that idiom as meaning non-efficacious.)

in the ideological towers

yup, de-silo the towers! reconnect them! create forest arcology scapes between them, supporting them.

and decide how to feed/house/cure/educate the masses we admit in taking authority away from those who have to live by those rules,

why any rules at all? why impose? why not merely facilitate? why not merely educate?

and decide for them.

yeah, dont do that. idiological slippery slope already lost footing, free sliding, once succumbing to the "well then we'll make them be free"

cannot bring enough emphasis to this...

many eyes make all bugs shallow

And homie don’t play dat!

tru dat.

(did you ever watch homie the clown?)

nop.

What I am trying to say is that if we believe in equality we must start in designing our world from the bottom up, not from top to bottom. If we need nails and screws to build let us decide where and how to manufacture nails and screws, or whether we need them at all.

and avail our best developed educational materials to best expedite any who seek to.

...lest we perpetually fall foul of the danger of a dangerously little bit of information.

hospitals

tankies

yup.

same issue as spooked me from the machine seeking to break us, to better meet the new ill-conceived metric.

the "for profit~" profit, heh, even that's a noxious mislead... it's "wealth extraction maximisation" now, in the fully malignant corporate form.... but anways, to keep it in the simple punchy original form: the "for profit medicine" oxymoron, depicted as their secret mantra "a patient cured is a customer lost", and the further realisation they can create patients/customers, by spreading disease, just the same as for-profit firemen would start fires. ... and same as law enforcement agencies pervert themselves under chasing their metric, and reaffirmation of their necessity to exist, by becoming less about the investigation, more about the instigation. ... and same as colonial supremacist jingoist hegemons fund the freedomfighters they'll proclaim terrorists.

If we can’t extract coal in an environmental way, do it in a healthy safe manner, let’s not use coal then. Simple!

"shut him up! we've got a lot invested in this ride!"

cry, in that uptonsinclairian corruption, both those who are deceived and those doing the deceiving.

... how few would persist in insisting on coal, and other energy sources that demand dependence upon big infrastructure and the rentiers maximising wealth extraction under duress of the monopoly's hold on essentials, with the alternatives denied and disincentivised and destroyed, if we all knew of the clean emancipatory technologies? only the scared and the demons?

All my friends enjoying 14k rpm motorcycles with titanium valves, are clueless how LONG it takes to go from surface to the bottom of some S.African mines where tens of thousands of workers in 3-4 shifts a day work. Some are so deep they eat, sleep, and take breaks down there and only come to light once a week. Who decides this?

the abusive agnotologists. and their victims. denying and denied the clean alternative means. ... even down to just renewable bio fuels. if the biker has to grow/harvest/extract/refine/make their own oil, ethanol, and graphene, based fuels, ... it'd be a much nicer world. more aware, less polluting, more respectful, more responsible...

getting there, past the lures of convenience and all the other sweetnessess of the juice in capitalism's pitcher plant... is our challenge.

game on.

Jean Luc Pickards and their fat masters.

I oft dream of a Star Trek without starfleet's militaristic hierarchy model.

Last pgrph

Because Jean Luc was kind, and Data was honest, and Worf was street justice, does that mean there is a good authoritarian hierarchy we are willing to live under? Power corrupts, and corruption empowers the fascist. Only when you replace such a structure do you eliminate the vehicle under which one "becomes" a fascist.

1 b4 last

Alcohol is a good fuel, with few drawbacks. And in the forest there will be plenty of fallen fruits and vegetables one can gather and boil some fuel. But it takes a large quantity to make little fuel, and it takes some fuel to make some more fuel. What's left the soil will still convert to nutritious compost for other vegetation. Under our current consumption of fuels and energy use globally, we would burn up nearly everything organic in/at/near the surface within a year. So lifestyle changes are called for.

2nd b4 about coal

It is not long ago that legislation was passed to restrict transport of coal in uncovered wagons as lung disease and cancer along the train tracks had become a child epidemic in some states like SC. Coincidentally nearly all villages by the tracks there were 98% black, but 100% poor. Coal was being exported because the US still produces so damn much. It is even hard of speaking of the coal cartel, basically it is two families, and they have financed many environmental organizations pushing for alternative energies and transport. (Planet of the humans - this wasn't lies, those were all facts, except for the earth festival being a few years before it was implied)
Deception around energy has got far too deep into the pseudo left both in US, UK, and Europe (UK and Europe ... not a mistake).

3rd about wealth and profit

Marx analysis of capital/-ism is very spot on, I believe, marxists on the other hand have turned into clergy being aggressive against the lack of orthodoxy.
Since the holly text hasn't changed, rhetoric hasn't changed, either reality has changed and can't be explained by theory, or theory is wrong and can't explain reality. Are we up to the task to analyze this one, I am willing, we start a new thread just on this, wealth extraction now and in late 19th century.
I have been banned by anarchists in discussing such things as a marxist, I've been banned by marxists for reconsidering the holly scripts ... But I don't think either can burry the topic long enough or their heads in the sand, and we can't keep balancing between two boats endlessly to fight against the capitalist aircraft carrier.

The top half of your message requires special attention, but just as you responded with

“ship’em out”!

an idea so bad (such a bad karma authoritarian
imposition, a hateful othering), that I nearly didnt
bother reading anything further.

This is how I usually react to "karma" or "praying" but to give the benefit of the doubt I will not shut down immediately and just let it slide for now as a "figure of speech" ... I am nowhere as strict in real life as I may be with political philosophy discussions.

Was your reaction justified above? Of course it was, and a welcomed one to say the least. Only a true libertarian "soul" would catch such little details and react. The m-l/orthodoxy is very much into shipping out, canceling out, hanging, beheading and other fun things. When the defeated activists from Spain runaway before Franco the butcher caught them, they went to the SU to seek political shelter, naive anti-capitalists as they were, the order was "ship'em out".
And nobody ever heard or read anything from them ever since. 90years have gone by, not even scribbles on pads, or walls survived "democratic centralization processes".

--
Naively sometimes I ask, after the "revolution" there will be no classes, so those individuals, industrialists, bankers, politicians, cops, soldiers, ... they are not of a class or have a class to serve, ... there is no reason for inhumanity!
Kids, they like to chop heads and have blood run down the drains, it is very hard to convince them not to play.

So "ship'em out" ... or let them join a community as equals. But we haven't gotten that far yet.

Process of deciding as equals:
I have been to assemblies of 500, maybe slightly more, most never got to speak. Some strived to speak but were not heard. Those who were heard were organized enough so they can be heard all the time. That is not very democratic or libertarian. The CNT in the 1880s-1930s had become over a million strong. They had very intricate processes for how decisions were made that reflected nearly the entirety of the members. Some 1st degree unions were small, some were larger. CNT was a third degree instrument. Yet the FAI managed to derail all of them and their processes, and in practice dragged the CNT to engage in a war they never decided to start.
This was followed by half a century of the most vicious longest lasting fascist regime, where one to be tortured and prisoned was a suspicion of being a communist or anarchist.

Are the zapatista a million or more, or at least near that much? But they can still decide at community level, on first degree, and their decisions can not be overturned by anyone outside. The 2nd degree instrument, the caracole, is below that level, and the 3rd degree instrument even further below that level. An upside down government that starts from Lisa and Juan in the community, down to the "junta" of good government. And the equivalent of the FAI, the EZLN, is outside at a distance, obeying and not intervening in anything internal. WOW!!! Light years ahead! It is like true communist at warp9 while we are still crawling in the mud. Lead by obeying.... it is not utopia for 31 years, it is their daily life .. they didn't steal, borrow, of confiscate anything, they have created everything from nearly 0, or below 0.

So somehow we know it is possible, we know what has failed, what we DON't want, and what not to repeat.

.... next on the individual ...

... about the individual ..

Is there anything "we" can say about the individual? Why even consider an individual. Would that individual exist inside or outside the "collective" being. Is the individual against the collective or vise versa?

If the political is the sphere where we collectively exchange ideas and practices on how to collectively manage what we have "in common" .. this individual is never in the conversation. It can't be. If we speak of the individual other than for ourselves, then we are speaking in behalf of another individual ... and somehow we are concerned and attempt to address the issues this individual is dealing with. Authoritarian, liberators, vanguards, priests and clergy, the middleman ...

If you climb a hill, there is nobody there, you are all alone with the foxes, the birds and the bees, ... is your activity political in any way? Unless your loved ones really miss you, and are concerned you vanished, and need to know you are well, is it an issue we should discuss?

In sciences there is this thing they call the unit of analysis, whether it is steel particles, bolts, molecules, teachers, people with amnesia, or classes, states, ..

The individual is not a unit of analysis of political discussion, it would be a trap and a fallacy to entangle ourselves in discussing anything about the individual.
I can speak of me, and you can speak of you, but it will not be a political discussion. If we talk about our sewage system and its problems, then it is political.

If we have agreed in the community no matter what we will defend human life no matter what, and Jane has just killed George .... then it became political, we have failed. We can't discuss Jane, but how we failed to protect George's life, even if he was an abuser, or if Jane always was.

SU

?

& re the whole "ship em out" reply reply bit and "no reason for inhumanity!", reminds of one of my old poems(/lyrics) https://social.trom.tf/display/cf7095707de8013888d9002590d8e506 which (spoiler) is about not falling for psychopathic ploys to get you to be psychopathic to defeat psychopaths. crudely speaking.

"Homey dont play that" much same sentiment as #WeAreNotDoingThatAnyMore. We're done.

Process of deciding as equals:

while flat rate of course should always be shown, methinks we can also attenuate better results, consulting aptitude weighted results, and other statistical analysis.

assemblies of 500, maybe slightly more, most never got to speak.

yeah, technology can facilitate better, already has, and can further yet, if only we better integrate our deployments.

Those who were heard were organized enough so they can be heard all the time. That is not very democratic or libertarian.

yup, mitigations for stuff like i imagined included in "weighted results, and other statistical analysis."

CNT

FAI

EZLN

? ? & ?

(jk, i can (and have) websearch(ed))

So somehow we know it is possible, we know what has failed, what we DON’t want, and what not to repeat.

alas, that projection lands rarely. too few do have any idea of possibilities or pitfals revealed from past attempts, where's wrong, and so on.

As I read your little historical account, It did strike me how little I knew, with the words ringing in my ear (i forget from where, which pundit or comedian...) "It's no wonder nobody learns history. You just learn way too much." ... which like those who grab the wrong end of the 1984 stick, some would hear that as evoking anti-curiosity, anti-intellectualism, as a virtue, as they chase deepening their own ignorance, enloudening the dopamine and other endorphins in every berating of the other, no matter how irrational, even, more so, the more irrational. ... mass formation does terrible things to us.

... mhmm... the individual...

"we"

diversely?

each?

all?

any?

what is this "we", can it say anything? is it a gestalt? how strong are the harmonic resonant bonds? where are its edges?

a universal "we"?

and, presumptively?

surely at this stage already, begging for the individual to rearrise. ;)

Is there anything “we” can say about the individual? Why even consider an individual. Would that individual exist inside or outside the “collective” being. Is the individual against the collective or vise versa?

From a certain point of view. [in or out] [why not both?] [ and neither ]

Also, interesting loss of question marks on your rhetorical questions in the middle of that rhetorical sandwich. Perhaps suggests prejudices, biases, programs, to introspect on.

If the political is the sphere where we collectively exchange ideas and practices on how to collectively manage what we have “in common” … this individual is never in the conversation. It can’t be. If we speak of the individual other than for ourselves, then we are speaking in behalf of another individual … and somehow we are concerned and attempt to address the issues this individual is dealing with. Authoritarian, liberators, vanguards, priests and clergy, the middleman …

one could get lost in that.

seems a lot simpler when considering the old lines along the lines of ... "your freedom ends where mine begins",
(iirc, camu defying the confirmation biassed excuse for atrocios psychopathy of caligula who asserted an individual's freedom is always at the expense of anothers. no! defy that foolish notion of necessary expense of other people's freedom to feed our own freedom... what an attrociously detatched psychopathic tyranny that just need not be. the parasitism that drags all down, depriving all human potential for far greater synergy. greater synergy such that even the tyrant-king parasite would be richer than can ever acrue via the parasitism. ... it's like when people say "if it's free then you're the product" or however that misleading profiteer's psyop line goes, oblivious to the many communities eager to help float all boats by teaching to fish, or when people say you have to suffer (pains and bland yuck) to be healthy... like they dont know about ayurveda where the more tasty the more healthy... )

and perhaps better expressed positively along lines of "my individual freedom affirms each's individual freedom".

there's likely a neat equation to this... similar to the famous bakunin line [1]. about freedom without hypocrisy.

If you climb a hill, there is nobody there, you are all alone with the foxes, the birds and the bees, … is your activity political in any way? Unless your loved ones really miss you, and are concerned you vanished, and need to know you are well, is it an issue we should discuss?

trees that fall and twigs that snap in the forest when no one is around to hear them, still fall, still snap. out of sight, out of mind, is inadequate to build a firm moral high ground from. the highest tier of (for want of a better term) "meditation" i know of that one can do, (higher even than plant medicines, such as psylocybes, ayuhuasca or iboga), is to open up to the suffering of the world. ... not just the suffering you happen upon witnessing. all of it.

The individual is not a unit of analysis of political discussion, it would be a trap and a fallacy to entangle ourselves in discussing anything about the individual.

sounds itself like a trap, to get us to take away individual rights and freedoms... lets say we do that for the greater good too, and to protect the vulnerable... would be easy to scare people into mass formations, have them self police it, totalitarianised, seeing any who would utter any inclination to individual liberty, autonomy, of thought or action, as the other, to attack, to eviscerate, as a necessary virtue to protect the greater good. ... never let an individualist among you. lol. ... oh god i hope that reads, as intended, as the dystopian nightmare reductio-absurdism to make the point, and not an encouragement of such demented insidious tankie ways.

would be absurd though, right? to try deploy that, and live by that... when it's already self defeating. XD like the gun that shoots itself. who said that? the individual. :P

i'm sure from some points of view, that's valid to dismiss the individual, and some of those points of view, themselves, more valid than others, like being dismissive of all metaphysics (and similarly disregarding "collective" too), or on grounds of ambiguity and preferring contextual specificies, or contrast when conflations and projections interfere to contort and harden prejudices into bigotry, or whatever other cogent arguments. but still, i'd not like to use that orwellian divisive ploy thinking it a virtue to be rid of talking about that which would have mislead us from being lockstep in the doubleplus goodthink.

from other points of view, nothing has ever been accomplished by anything other than the individual.

... and no. not in total isolation. no such thing exists. but just because we cannot absolutely separate the individual from the context of their community, family, collectives, no matter how estranged or reclusive, does not mean it does not exist, or is not useful or somehow dangerously misleading to include in our explorations of idea and discourse.

you wrote those ideas, you, the individual, inspired by many a past teacher for sure, incapable without others having developed the language, and an audience/reader to receive it... you did. so dont let the bastards grind you down to a conceptual oblivion and vacuum void into which they can pour in any roles to have you conform to, disgrearding your individuality... squandering that vast human potential in each our intricate nuanced diversity of aptitudes interplaying... potentials far greater in us each as individuals availed a preserved autonomy of their [our] own.

nah... lets keep the individual.

lets keep celebrating that diversity of inputs to the collective pool, and not blur it out in homogenizing psyops of conformist flattening drone. stronger collectives when all the human potential of each individual is respected. when responsiveness to needs meets individual needs, and not statistical averaged needs, if even bothering with needs at all, as many a system seeks to find ways around having to deal with needs... the insanities abound, and are all around, insipidly waiting for their insidious "in".

and they're hard to detect, in their insipid dormant waiting state. makes them all the more dangerous. can be walking along, fooling oneself obliviously, thinking oneself on a virtuous path, when, oops, nope, some fear snapped in, perverted thoughts, before even realising the critical mind was not making the decisions any more, and some fear program had been running, and egotistically got rebranded as clear thought... because of course i think clearly, i'm an intellectual dont you know. ;D

if we cannot speak of the individual in the general, are we too deprived of speaking of specific individuals, like mr establishment, and are not to extrapolate generalities and transferable lessons and metaphors and archetypes etc? neither the lauded nor the lambasted. thankyou big brother for sparing us the wrongthink. ;]

If we have agreed in the community no matter what we will defend human life no matter what, and Jane has just killed George … then it became political, we have failed. We can’t discuss Jane, but how we failed to protect George’s life, even if he was an abuser, or if Jane always was.

this madness will end us all.

it's almost like advocating we do away with issue reporting. but worse, more insidious than that. the thought police, with their list of bad words.

no science nor democracy under censorship.

[1: "We are convinced that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and barbarity." ~ something like that. paraphrased Bakunin.]