Sydney Sweeney is an actress who is probably more famous now for being hot and doing hot stuff than being an actress. Was it her plan all along to use her hotness to become famous? I think it's...
WestJet passengers will soon have to pay more to sit in adjustable reclining seats.
In September, the airline announced that it's revamping the cabinβ¦
I expect this to negatively impact passenger-to-passenger relations. The sense of courtesy towards others that might have governed many situations where a reclining seat would make the person behind less comfortable or inconvenienced will turn to "I paid for it, so it's my right."
Unpopular take but I'd infinitely rather no recline seats. Recline doesn't make you more comfortable - it's just an illusion of control. It screws the person behind you, but you have no choice if the passenger in front of you reclines. My most comfortable flights have been in the aisle/window seat of low-cost carriers (European carriers, Cebu Pacific, Flair/Lynx).
I know I'm not in the majority because of my back problems, but reclining seats actually help for me. There was one time where I was moved to a seat just in front of the escape paths and couldn't recline it, it was torture for me and I had back pains for a few days after the 8h flight.
All that to say, remind yourself that the way these affect you or not is not universal.
Next, the guy behind you can pay to block your seat. Final step is to start an auction to see who is willing to pay more to either recline or block my seat. Now the airline can make even more money!
Frequent flyers get the reclining seats for free though. They're just trying to fit more seats on planes while hiding the fact that WestJet Rewards is becoming increasingly enshittified.
"It was here in this faraway castle shrouded in legend where @chuls found the mystical sword of destiny that she needed for her quest. Adventure awaits.."
For communism to work, we need each and every person to not be a greedy bastard under it all. It only takes one greedy bastard to ruin it all, as history has repeatedly shown.
We are but monkeys in trousers. Our survival instincts still rule our behaviours, and until that changes, communism will not work, simple as that.
Would be harder to explain it away if they werenβt brutal undemocratic regimes though
They aren't though.
Cuba passed a new constitution by referendum in 2019 with 90%+ in favor.
A common perspective I've heard here in Vietnam is "socialism means the government has to represent everyone". (Another common perspective is that the party is openly corrupt and not meaningfully democratic. Those typically aren't held by the same people)
Most every Chinese would tell you 1. Democracy is important. 2. The CPC represents my views via democracy.
It is the fantasy that corporations can serve the interest all stakeholders (employees, customers etc.) rather than a minority of shareholders as is currently: investopedia.com/stakeholder-cβ¦
The unmitigated disaster part existed under feudalism also.
Perhaps, but I have to wonder how many feudal peasants would willingly exchange their existence for the precariat one we exist under.
Capitalism is slowly turning back into feudalism
If that is true, then it must mean that capitalism never replaced feudalism, but was instead built on top of feudalism - which is not that difficult to believe if you live in a 3rd-world extraction zone (like I do).
Do you think mining workers had it better under feodalism? Not sure things went worse for them because of capitalism, mining was always a dangerous and shitty job, often done by slaves or convicts because of how shit the conditions were.
Its also not hard to believe if you Μlook at the continuation of power across much of Europe. Its not a 1:1 comparison but lots of families of feudal lords are still wealthy and powerful today if they didn't completely fuck up. The power has spread out but has concentrated in other ways.
Do you think mining workers had it better under feodalism?
In the pre-capitalist world mining practices were all over the place... it wasn't just chain-gangs and overseers. And the conditions for it isn't fundamentally any shittier than working a farm or a factory - I know because I can literally walk down the street and ask a zama-zama (an artisinal - "illegal", according to our bootlicking media - miner) and ask him who and what it is that actually makes their work conditions shitty and dangerous.
We all know what happens to miners under the capitalist mode of production, however - it's literally why some of the most vicious crackdowns on organised labour in history involved the mining industry.
That's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it...
That's not true, though. Communism, ie a system where production and distribution are fully collectivized and run according to a common plan, doesn't care at all if someone is "greedy," and socialist economies that have begun building towards such a society have proven the opposite of your claims; they've been remarkably effective at achieving positive economic growth while delivering better metrics for the working class than capitalist systems.
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."
The problems with the USSR were more nuanced than the idea that opportunism is inevitable rot. There are existing socialist countries today that are continuing to develop, and trying to depend on the west for socialism to succeed anywhere is a self-defeating analysis.
The largest elimination of poverty in history was in China, in a socialist economy. If you remove China from the last century, then the idea that poverty is erasing everywhere is proven false immediately.
Communism, in the sense of the future stateless, classless, moneyless society, hasn't been reached, but socialism absolutely has been and exists in several countries today. Communism is necessarily post-socialist.
Early communalism isn't the same as future communism, Marx was only comparing the two modes of production as far as they both lack class, not beyond that. Communism is not a return to communalism, but an advancement beyond socialism, ie towards fully collectivized and interconnected production at a global scale.
The history of the transition from one mode of production to the next has always been intrinsically tied to technological development. The transition from feudalism to capitalism could not have happened without the steam engine, as an example. That being said, socialism is most responsible for poverty eradication, if we cut out socialist economies poverty has gone up over the last century.
Yes, there were many issues with USSR, but inevitable opportunism that is bred by capitalist mode of production and the way of life it produces is, in my opinion, one of the biggest dangers for DOTP's, and it does encapsulate a lot of other issues USSR had such as its underdevelopment or failure at achieving (meaningful) internationalism. It obviously doesn't encapsulate everything, but I wrote the comment at work and I'm not really used to writing unreadable blocks of text from a phone.
Mining conditions are all over the place right now. Some workers have it good, with good compensation, perks and with a lot of attention paid to safety and others live in horrible deathly conditions and are practically slaves
Technically utopian socialism, ie the socialism of Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, etc predates Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels created scientific socialism, which is where socialism began to really take off.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev's reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achi
... show more
Howdy.
The USSR did not have a capitalist mode of production, though. Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets. The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
The USSR was also extremely internationalist. It was itself a multi-national union, and sponsored revolutions the world over, dedicated itself to building up relations with other socialist countries like China and Cuba, etc, and aided even nationalist revolutions against imperialism, such as in Algeria.
The problems with the USSR were myriad, but its dissolution was not an inevitability as you claim. Gorbachev's reforms ultimately led to political and economic instability, and the USSR was forced into dedicating a large portion of their productive forces to keeping up with the US Empire millitarily in order to stave off invasion. The USSR, despite its flaws, was a tremendous first step for socialism globally, and managed to rapidly achieve huge gains in quality of life, scientific achievement, and industrialization in a planned manner in a socialist economy.
Capitalism was most responsible for underdeveloping the global south. Europeans genocided the indigenous Americans and needed a large supply of labor, so they used their (at the time) minor technological advantage to trade high-demand commodities exclusively for slaves in Africa. This depressed African development and skyrocketed European development, and this expanded in colonialism.
Capitalism was progressive as compared with feudalism, yes, but it's been socialist economies that have been most responsible of eradicating poverty. If you remove socialist countries, poverty has gone up in the last century.
Planned economies do work. Using the USSR as an example, they achieved tremendous economic growth surpassing the vast majority of capitalist economies, all while under intense sanctions and invasion.
The USSR and other socialist economies have been some of the most rapidly developing countries in history.
Lemmy itself is not a product of capitalism, either, FOSS can be used by capitalism but largely sits outside that.
This is basically an intro course on ML, isn't it! I've been meaning to read leftist theory from different angles so your links are handy. There's a good (looking) anarchist reading list out there too that I've been meaning to dig into.
I fully agree with the first part. Countries with already developed industry and trade got the boost, and that's the major reason for the large difference in development between Underdeveloped and Developed nations.
If you remove socialist countries, poverty has gone up in the last century
I don't get it. Remove in what way? Too vague to carry any meaning.
If you mean their political, economic, and ideological impact on surrounding nations then yeah, obviously. But the socialist countries themselves had to adopt some form of capitalism to continue to grow economically (see: china). The countries that didn't move away from central planning eventually collapsed (eg. USSR*).
*I understand how the cause of the USSR's collapse is not soley the inefficiency of central planning, but even if the country was allowed to continue unimpeded, it would have collapsed because of that one reason.
https://inflationdata.com/articles/2022/08/10/u-s-cumulative-inflation-since-1913/ "I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take it violently out of the hands ofβ¦
They do, to a certain extent. Once an economy begins to grow more and more complex, the intensity of calculations needed increases proportionally (edit: proportional may not be the right word here).
A large part of the USSR's workforce was dedicated to economic planning at the time of its collapse, and it was projected to reach 50% by the 2000s.
They intended to solve this with computers, but there's reasons this wouldn't have worked:
A: Economic calculation involves NP-Hard problems, where the complexity can increase out of nowhere.
If you needed to perform 1600 calculations one day, next week the number needed could jump to 36000. (NP-Hard problems are also common in route determination programs used by delivery apps to devise optimum routes. If you increase the number of locations from 10 to 11, the computations needed to calculate an optimum route increases staggeringly, and it keeps getting worse the more complex you make it.)
B: Making the economy more complex makes the calculations
... show more
Planned economies do work
They do, to a certain extent. Once an economy begins to grow more and more complex, the intensity of calculations needed increases proportionally (edit: proportional may not be the right word here).
A large part of the USSR's workforce was dedicated to economic planning at the time of its collapse, and it was projected to reach 50% by the 2000s.
They intended to solve this with computers, but there's reasons this wouldn't have worked:
A: Economic calculation involves NP-Hard problems, where the complexity can increase out of nowhere.
If you needed to perform 1600 calculations one day, next week the number needed could jump to 36000. (NP-Hard problems are also common in route determination programs used by delivery apps to devise optimum routes. If you increase the number of locations from 10 to 11, the computations needed to calculate an optimum route increases staggeringly, and it keeps getting worse the more complex you make it.)
B: Making the economy more complex makes the calculations needed more-than-exponentially extra intensive and numerous. If you introduce computers into the mix, more people are free to do other things and make the economy even more complex. It's a really fast vicious cycle that doesn't end well.
And in all of this, I haven't even mentioned the corruption involved in bureaucracy
Of course. What I'm curious about is why (only?) this particular idea requires that particular format. One can explain some pretty complicated ideas over Lemmy! I can be wrong about frogs, someone tells me how their spots work, but I don't have to read a book about frogs looking for an answer.
Do constituent parts of the idea not make sense individually?
There's several misconceptions here, but I'll get to them after addressing the poverty point. When I said "when we remove socialist countries," I mean the absolute poverty worldwide has primarily gone down when you include socialist countries in that statistic, if you only include capitalist countries then poverty goes up as compared to the total number, because poverty isn't systematically targeted for alleviation in capitalism but instead is a requirement for it to function. That's not vague, it's clear-cut.
Onto the misconceptions. Markets and private property are not themselves capitalism. What distinguishes capitalism as a system from socialism as a system is whether private ownership or public ownership is principle, ie covers the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The USSR had some small degree of private property, and so did China even under Mao and later the Gang of Four. China opened up their capital markets to foreign investment while maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, and rely heavily on central planning to direct the economy. Th
... show more
There's several misconceptions here, but I'll get to them after addressing the poverty point. When I said "when we remove socialist countries," I mean the absolute poverty worldwide has primarily gone down when you include socialist countries in that statistic, if you only include capitalist countries then poverty goes up as compared to the total number, because poverty isn't systematically targeted for alleviation in capitalism but instead is a requirement for it to function. That's not vague, it's clear-cut.
Onto the misconceptions. Markets and private property are not themselves capitalism. What distinguishes capitalism as a system from socialism as a system is whether private ownership or public ownership is principle, ie covers the large firms and key industries at a minimum. The USSR had some small degree of private property, and so did China even under Mao and later the Gang of Four. China opened up their capital markets to foreign investment while maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, and rely heavily on central planning to direct the economy. They are in the earlier stages of socialism, as shown here:
The reason for adopting controlled markets for the smaller and medium firms is because that form of ownership better suited China's level of development. Public ownership works more effectively at higher levels of development, so it's like a controlled fire for heat before replacing with an electric system when the tech advances. Out of control, the fire can be destructive, but by maintaining control of the large firms and key industries you maintain control over the rest of production.
As for central planning, that's not why the USSR dissolved, and was actually one of its greatest strengths. The economy grew rapidly and consistently throughout the USSR's existence:
Instead, what happened is that reforms such as those under Gorbachev created economic and political division against central planning, as well as problems such as nationalism in some of the SSRs and SFSRs, as well as the fact that the USSR had to dedicate tons of resources and production to maintaining millitary parity with the US Empire despite also needing to recover from the devastation of World War II.
There's absolutely no basis for the idea that central planning induces collapse, China relies on it heavily as do other socialist countries like Cuba, and even megacorporations these days rely more on internal planning and minor cyberbetics than price signals as was traditional for earlier capitalism.
Why bother transcribing the explanation when it already exists in digital format where you can easily access it? If you can read a comment explaining it then you can read a book explaining it. And no this is not the only subject that people on the internet are told to read a book about, it's just the #1 topic people like to play dumb about because there's no rational defense for capitalism
This is generally not true, the Economic Calculation Problem is a made-up excuse, same with the idea that 50% of the USSR's economy would be dedicated to planning. Administration and planning is important, but it isn't the kind of thing that overwhelms the economy. Megacorporations like Walmart and Amazon already employ economic planning over price signals to great effect, and socialist economies are still rapidly advancing, especially China, even though it relies heavily on central planning.
Corruption happens in capitalism, too, it isn't something especially worse in socialism.
Personally I literally cannot finish an entire book until I'm already interested in the subject. I can look up one specific aspect at a time in the encyclopedia, which has worked really well for me in other fields - including other social sciences and philosophies. Then something sparks and the heavy reading doesn't feel heavy.
I'm interested in human progress in general, but keep being presented with what looks like an imposing wall.
I don't expect you to spend the time and energy explaining whatever part about communism to that dude right here and now. I just wish they were links to lines of a FAQ, or anything that requires less up-front investment. Capitalism defends itself by limiting our time to read volumes of books.
For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-Dühring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
... show more
For what it's worth, I've tried to curate and tweak an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list over the last year or so. Section 0a is designed to pitch the case for Marxism-Leninism in as short and concise a manner as I think possible, the rest of the list is for those who actually wish to study in-depth and get a rock-solid understanding of the fundamentals. It isn't an exhaustive list, I'd add Capital and Anti-DΓΌhring for sure as well as some others, but it's thorough and doesn't have any glaring holes.
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."
Mfw Ezra Klein III is streaming holo-eds to my great grandkids excoriating the left for not supporting his new book "Mutualist Capitalism" after David Hogg failed to stop Barron Trump getting elected president for life
Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets
Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP wh
... show more
Public ownership was the principle aspect of its economy, and private ownership was mostly relegated to black markets
Public ownership doesn't make a mode of production, it's a falsifier belief (such as of Lassalle) Marx himself had to fight against that he called bourgeois socialism.
The economy did not rely on the circulation of capital, or its continuous transmogrification.
This does make their mode of production not purely capitalistic though I agree, even though the system wasn't capital-free. Still, a lot of the social relations remained, enough for opportunism to still be heavily encouraged by the system especially when it came to the party and bureaucratic management of the capital.
That being said, it was still not socialist economy - a socialist economy comes after productive forces are sufficiently developed and commodity production has been completely abolished. Until then it hasn't changed the mode of production yet from capitalist, with it being mixed at best and it instead is a period of DOTP where productive forces are developed or reorganized, which, don't get me wrong, is a massive step forward and a massive achievement, but one that can be reversed unlike historical transformation of mode of production.
Stalin redefined socialism, which was previously viewed as the abolishment of capitalism into something entirely different and pretty much one of the main major goals into "whatever USSR was at the time", which was quite a disgusting move in terms of opportunism, though may have had good intentions back when it was done. Now, it just serves to confuse people and as an excuse to call capitalism a different name.
Though, this is something we'll NEVER see eye to eye with lmao
Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn't socialism, I agree. That's not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren't socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We've discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I'll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on "one-drop" analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn't come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public owner
... show more
Yes, public ownership within a capitalist economy, under a bourgeois state, isn't socialism, I agree. That's not what I said, though. Just like markets in a socialist economy are not capitalism, public ownership in capitalist economies aren't socialism. What ultimately matters is what is principle, not what exists period, otherwise all modes of production are the same as they all contain at minimum trace elements of others.
We've discussed this before, and I agree in that we will likely never agree, but I'll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on "one-drop" analysis. Capitalist economies are not defined by the absence of collectivized ownership, but by private ownership and the circulation of capital being principle. Socialism, as the transition between capitalism and communism, is no different in that it too is not defined by purity, but by principle aspects.
This doesn't come from Stalin, but is from Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It's like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production distinct from all previous in defining it by purity and not by the principle aspect.
No need to read the entire article. Just skim through it a bit.
Btw, I can attest that the 1964 regime change in Brazil was real because I live here and we study the military dictatorship period in middle/high school and the theme is still relevant to this day (hence why we jailed Bolsonaro). (Edit: I forgot to mention that the reveal that 1964 had a hand from operation condor is recent. it was just a "leftist hoax" before but, "today", the papers of US involvement in Brazil's coup made the "leftist hoax" not be a hoax anymore)
We will need to wait a a few more decades before going public that US also interfered with our politics on the impeachment of Dilma and raise of Bolsonaro to power.
But at least Obama government bugging Dilma's phone was true
No need to read the entire article. Just skim through it a bit.
Btw, I can attest that the 1964 regime change in Brazil was real because I live here and we study the military dictatorship period in middle/high school and the theme is still relevant to this day (hence why we jailed Bolsonaro). (Edit: I forgot to mention that the reveal that 1964 had a hand from operation condor is recent. it was just a "leftist hoax" before but, "today", the papers of US involvement in Brazil's coup made the "leftist hoax" not be a hoax anymore)
We will need to wait a a few more decades before going public that US also interfered with our politics on the impeachment of Dilma and raise of Bolsonaro to power.
But at least Obama government bugging Dilma's phone was true
Also, did anyone ever mentioned that the only country who used nukes in wars up to this day was US? the country that bombed 2 civilians cities for "research purposes"?
If Russia and France didn't got their bombs in time, I can almost assure you that history would be different a lot of other countries would receive radioactive democracy blessings from US intead of the "boring" democracy US employs in the world nowadays.
It just seems so US centric that it's always the US this the US that, there's like the whole rest of the world too but the discussion always is "socialist country do something bad" "well what about the US???". Like goddamn
Sure. That can happen when all corporations have a legal duty to all ~~shareholders~~ stakeholders and they all have an equal right and access to influencing/suing them.
To the contrary, socialism has already been proven good, and the foundations of socialism, ie public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, already work astoundingly well. Communism as the fully collectivized mode of production beyond that has been more affirmed by the existence of socialism.
If it were true that communism was even resistant to the corruption of human greed, it wouldn't end in dictatorship or oligarchy as it does.
Don't misunderstand my position, I deeply wish we weren't such a young species and that we'd developed enough psychologically that we could get past our basic instincts, to see past the immediate short term as a whole, to work collectively for everyone's benefit, including those that will inherit this earth when we become raw materials once again.
However, this is not the case. Look at how easy we are as a species to manipulate, to make think and do what a small subset want us to, for their benefit.
That's because we're still very instinct driven, simple creatures for the most part. Yes, in some cases an individual stands above this definition, but they are categorically not the norm. Until they are, we're led around by our collective basic drives, and that includes making sure us and ours have "enough" , which means taking it, by hook or by crook.
To discount basic human nature when mulling political systems is pure folly.
Socialist countries have not been oligarchial nor dictatorial. They haven't been utopian wonderlands free from any problems either, but they've been dramatically more democratic for the working class than capitalist countries.
I understand your position very well, it's just wrong and based on critical misunderstandings of socialism in theory and in practice. Simple as that. Collectivized production and distribution works very well when it comes to economic growth and satisfying the needs of more people.
I'm not discounting "human nature," you're attributing it as a problem for socialism when that isn't the case. Again, socialism doesn't care if everyone is perfectly moral and upstanding, that has nothing to do with how we run collectivized production. You should familiarize yourself with what leftists are actually talking about before waxing poetic about how there's some fundamental flaw we haven't properly understood, as though we don't hear the same tired arguments day in and day out.
Some workers have it good, with good compensation, perks
Only in places where labour organising have managed to win concessions in spite of the capitalist mode of production - a capitalist mode of production that is reproduced globally to this very day. If it wasn't for the need to stabilise the imperial core, coal miners in Germany would be treated no differently than cobalt miners in the DRC. There is nothing comparable to that in the pre-capitalist world - not even the brutal exploitation of the Americas by the Spanish was reproduced globally.
Why do you think it’s the US specifically and none of all the other capitalist countries
then you go about
It just seems so US centric that it’s always the US this the US that, there’s like the whole rest of the world too but the discussion always is “socialist country do something bad” “well what about the US???”. Like goddamn
Can you first decide if you are talking about capitalist countries (as stated first) or socialist countries? Or are you going to be moving goalposts?
I wrote a direct and on the point answer on why do some people think it is US specifically.
As pointed out, US backed coups and regime changes (unless you want to argue that these facts are untrue).
Now, if you want to go about other capitalist countries, then France and UK have their hands on some regime changes as well over the years.
Although this wkipedia entry doesn't look as bad as the US' one, only a fool would think that France has good intention about the
... show more
Why do you think itβs the US specifically and none of all the other capitalist countries
then you go about
It just seems so US centric that itβs always the US this the US that, thereβs like the whole rest of the world too but the discussion always is βsocialist country do something badβ βwell what about the US???β. Like goddamn
Can you first decide if you are talking about capitalist countries (as stated first) or socialist countries? Or are you going to be moving goalposts?
I wrote a direct and on the point answer on why do some people think it is US specifically.
As pointed out, US backed coups and regime changes (unless you want to argue that these facts are untrue).
Now, if you want to go about other capitalist countries, then France and UK have their hands on some regime changes as well over the years.
Although this wkipedia entry doesn't look as bad as the US' one, only a fool would think that France has good intention about their interference in the middle east:
Even my country, Brazil, has some dirt on it by being an economical powerhouse among Latin America.
We did try to make comercial relations that mixed both the style of EU (Mercosul) with our neighbors and also similar to China-african countries relation as we did with Cuba by bringing Cuban physicians to work here while we helped them economically (but I'm sure there was some strings attached. we aren't saints and nor do we pretend to be the savior of free democratic world).
But we do know that, if left unchecked, we could derail again into being imperialist or into being a dictatorship (again, we just jailed Jair Bolsonar for trying a coup d'etat to make another military dictatorship in the shape of the 1964 that happened).
Speaking of Bolsonaro, one of the first things he did was to cut out the deal Brazil had with Cuba because our Brazilian physicians don't want to work in the countryside (they claim the pay is low or that municipalities may freeze payment over months) but at the same time, they didn't wanted anybody else in that market-share (in this case, Cuban doctors).
So it is all shitty situations around and no one is a saint.
I hope it does satisfy your desire for a "nobody is a saint", but, keep in mind that in terms of actual harm, US and Russia are the greatest danger right now.
US and Russia together have around 90% of nuclear warheads of the world.
If they even (hypothetically) join political forces and "work as one country", then they could bomb whatever the fuck of whatever country with almost no pushback.
Though I still think that America is more trigger happy (pun intended) than Russia.
Ehh... I wouldn't say socialism affirms communism. At least far less than it condemns capitalism.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly it's not your property any more.
That's not really how socialism or communism works, though. It isn't a legalistic moral code, but the adoption of collectivized production at a global scale.
I wouldnβt say itβs a fantasy, itβs just a currently different cultural perspective that is being taught to the next generation of business leaders.
Some people are bought into the idea, but unless the actual laws change itβs not so easy to legally be able to prioritize the needs of all stakeholders equally.
I personally donβt see stakeholder theory as the βfixβ, but itβs a good start to get more ethical capitalism thatβs not actively hurting the planet, workers, and communities.
Nobody currently alive is going to accept private property entering a gray area where if you produce with it, suddenly itβs not your property any more.
Speak for yourself, there are plenty of people alive that would be fine with there being no more private property. Personal property isn't the same thing, and it's fine producing something with it, there would be tools available to all to rent out or use, what's so wrong with that? In fact tool libraries already exist, as do worker owned co-ops.
Progressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying "in theory", yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the
... show more
Capitalism is a historical progression
Progressive =/= better. The Capitalist social relation inevitably reproduces itself across the globe because of the social forces. Not because it is an improvement.
Therefore, this expansion of productive powers in capitalism in theory leads to better life quality, less socially necessary labor time to provide for everyone, less mortality given how we can now produce things like insulin in complex labs, etc.
Regardless of the debate that these modern conceptions can be attributed entirely to a change in the mode of production rather then simply the inevitable progression of humanities technological knowledge, Marx actually argued Capitalism inevitably immiserates the proletariat rather than advancing quality of life.
You try to hedge this by saying "in theory", yet not even in theory. It is a lie of the bourgeoisie the proletarian slavery is an improvement over peasant slavery. In theory, Capitalism is simply the reproduction of the capitalist social relationship and the replacement of the nobility class with the new bourgeoisie class.
Btw, comparison between feudal peasantry and proletariat is flawed - peasants were based in countryside and essentially were the middle class of it
The comparison is not to equalize the proletariat and peasantry in their relationship to the means of production, but in the demographic comparison for who is the majority of the planet. In Feudal times, peasants, including serfs make up the majority of people. And serfs are decidedly not middle class. Peasants were an exploited class under feudalism, duped by the bourgeoisie to support the inevitable capitalist revolution that would "improve their quality of life", only to find themselves alienated industrial laborers and at the bottom of class society once again.
They got what they wanted, but will they like it and will it stick? On a technical note things can improve and the three branches could flip back within 15 years at the most. For that to actually happen though people need to start feeling progressive wins now.
For that reason, the focus should be on trying to implement all the progressive programs weβve been wanting federally, to be at the state level instead. States will likely need to be willing to go into debt to fund these programs, but if they do then the people living in those states will be much better off than they are now. Many people living in purple and red states will be much more likely to want those progressive programs when they actually are seeing how successful they are in Blue states as well.
but I’ll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on “one-drop” analysis.
All of the "socialist countries" that you defend, do not just have "one-drop" of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. It’s like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the e
... show more
but Iβll say it again: your analysis of socialism fails because it relies on βone-dropβ analysis.
All of the "socialist countries" that you defend, do not just have "one-drop" of capitalism. They inevitably reproduce and enfranchise the capitalist social relationship in all aspects of their production, and their populations are dependent on the market to survive. Whether that is done by state planners or private capitalists, the exploitation of the proletariat class continues, in fact following the laws of capitalism, like the continuous immiseration of the proletariat and the inevitable necessity of imperialism under Capitalism.
A socialist economy cannot just will the productive forces to levels where public ownership is the most effective, I agree, but I disagree that that means that an underdeveloped country cannot retain ownership of the large firms and key industries, gradually appropriating capital with respect to its development. Itβs like using fire for heating, keeping it in check by controlling the environment and all inputs, fuel, etc, and gradually replacing it with electrified heating as time goes on and you get the tech for it.
Why do your "socialist countries" not appropriate capital then? Why do they inevitably concede to private ownership, or even under the "state run monopolies" continue the capitalist social relation?
I fundamentally cannot agree with treating socialism itself as some unique mode of production
Even if we concede that, Capitalist social relationships and Socialist social relationships will coexist under a Dictatorship of The Proletariat, your "socialist countries" do not even attempt this, bar the revision of defining "state ownership" as a socialist social relationship. Yet, a number of countries you would consider "capitalist" practice(d) state ownership.
Which reveals your ideology for what it truly is, Capitalism with red paint, essentially, social democracy. If socialism is not a mode of production, what is it? An ideology. Agitated for in bourgeoisie parliaments as ethical capitalism with red flag characteristics. What would be the end of a "Socialist State" to you? When they change the flag color? If the "Communist Party" changes its name to the "Capitalist Party"? You have no material conception of what Socialism and Capitalism is, which is why it collapses into idealism to the extent you even refuse to accept that Socialism is an independent mode of production in of itself.
No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say "one drop," I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn't something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn't mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn't the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn't a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect
... show more
No, this is a ridiculous misreading of my comment, and of Marxism in general. When I say "one drop," I mean of private property, not of capitalism itself. Capitalism is an overarching system, it isn't something you define as a quantum element. I already stated that capitalist systems have public ownership, and that that doesn't mean capitalist systems have socialist elements either.
Socialist countries are appropriating capital, yes. Public ownership is the principle aspect of their economies as well. You proceed from a false assumption and base your argument on that, but the premise itself is false. Socialism is a mode of production where public, collectivized ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Simple as that. It isn't the public sector of a capitalist state, nor is it exclusively a system that is fully collectivized.
Your entire comment is mired in the idealism you accuse me of. I have never once suggested that socialism isn't a mode of production, yet you are here affirming it as something unique, holy even, perfect, ideal, devoid of contradictions. This is the very utopian idealism Marx railed against when correcting Hegel's idealist dialectics. All modes of production contain contradictions, all modes of production contain elements of other modes of production. If you erase dialectics and only look at systems by their purity, you'd find that all modes of production fail to be correctly analyzed, because none are pure.
When economists point to global eradication of poverty, they rely on the dramatic and directed poverty eradication campaigns from China. In the total world, however, western imperialism has been responsible for devastation, underdevelopment of the global south, and stunted growth while the global north slowly decays.
We're talking about how not all conditions are the same, you can't just discard some conditions because they differ from the point you're trying to make. Some miners have it really good inside a capitalist system, same as some might've had it good under feodalist system.
Not disagreeing with you any bit, but I want to clarify that by "Brazil being imperialistic" I meant how we expanded our territory during the 1800s and our "most recent war" at Paraguay around late 1800
(btw, I had to search the date and found that our last "recent" territorial war was probably the Acre war (1899), a few years after Paraguay war -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_β¦ )
I don't disagree with you that we were and are exploited, but we surely expanded our territory by a lot of land-grabbing in those wars (even tho I recognize these were old times).
Explain to those that don't already understand, and then get the rest of the communists to agree that it doesn't include private property used for work.
I don't follow. Communism isn't when you ban all private property and punish anyone producing for themselves, but by collectivizing production at a global scale to the point that that's counter-intuitive and can't really be done for profit anyways.
Only those strongly invested in capital. But in the end that won't matter, because they will be overthrown.
Edit: Most people will not care because it will not effect their lives in any meaningful way, they'll still be able to make and get things, they just won't be able to lord it over others.
you canβt just discard some conditions because they differ
I am not discarding anything. There simply was no feudalist model of resource extraction analogous to the one that has been driving the mining industry in the capitalist era. The well-paid shift boss in a mine in Australia and the poorly-paid rock-drill-operator in South Africa is working under the same capitalist mode of production.
Propped up by the global hardware distribution of capitalists, Linux (capitalist companies have made major contributions to linux, and still do), and the internet (distributed under a capitalist model)
You're complaining about painting all feodalism era mining as brutal and hazardous while painting all mining under capitalism as brutal and hazardous. It just seems funny
Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, there has never been a society that has reached that mode of production. There are socialist countries led by communist parties, which is why I answered like I did. Either you're talking about fictional communist societies, or you're referring to socialist countries run by communist parties, so I picked the better-faith option and answered your question with corrected terms.
I'd rather not just dismiss your point outright and take an easy victory by pointing out that you got terminology mixed up, but instead answer your point as you meant it. If that's what you consider "moving the goalpost," then I don't think you were ever interested in discussion to begin with.
From Hong Kong to Buenos Aires, from Egyptian stadiums to French demonstrations, a message sumptuously graffitied on walls in Santiago and on railway cars in Britain, stenciled in Tunis and made on urinals with magic markers, spray-painted in Minneapβ¦
Be hard on the drug suppliers, but help the victims of those drug dealers by giving them treatment. That should be one of the nation building projects. Build a shit load of treatment centers and group homes for the mentally ill homeless. Absolutely drop the hammer on gangs such as hell angels who are bringing this shit into the country.
I am more confused now after your message. But you mentioned Kindle. Does this sentence makes sence? βYou can send any "dodgy" file to your Kindle simply by using email β just attach the file and send it to your Kindleβs email address.β
Before purchasing the Kobo e reader I researched the difference between it and the Kindle and came to the conclusion that Kobo is more open as to the origin of reading documents.
Red Whacker
in reply to group_hug • •Canada reshared this.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to group_hug • • •like this
Red Whacker and KaRunChiy like this.
StinkyFingerItchyBum
in reply to Boomer Humor Doomergod • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Boomer Humor Doomergod
in reply to StinkyFingerItchyBum • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Tiger666
in reply to group_hug • • •AGM
in reply to group_hug • • •forty2
in reply to AGM • • •Bea
in reply to AGM • • •ganryuu
in reply to Bea • • •I know I'm not in the majority because of my back problems, but reclining seats actually help for me. There was one time where I was moved to a seat just in front of the escape paths and couldn't recline it, it was torture for me and I had back pains for a few days after the 8h flight.
All that to say, remind yourself that the way these affect you or not is not universal.
Fermion
in reply to ganryuu • • •Eczpurt
in reply to group_hug • • •crank0271
in reply to Eczpurt • • •This guy capitalisms.
Settle down there, Mr. Vanderbilt.
xxd
in reply to group_hug • • •Final step is to start an auction to see who is willing to pay more to either recline or block my seat. Now the airline can make even more money!
panda_abyss
in reply to group_hug • • •Nash equilibrium: if nobody pays for them theyβll have to give those seats away for free.
By cooperating we all get better outcomes on average.
twopi
in reply to panda_abyss • • •panda_abyss
in reply to twopi • • •Bea
in reply to panda_abyss • • •