Modlog

/c/socialism Modlog
TimemodAction
2 days ago
mod
Banned sexy_peach@feddit.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: in 2 days
2 days ago
mod
Banned sexy_peach@feddit.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: in 2 days
2 days ago
mod
Banned sexy_peach@feddit.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: in 2 days
2 days ago
mod
Banned sexy_peach@feddit.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: in 2 days
2 days ago
mod
Banned sexy_peach@feddit.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: in 2 days
3 days ago
mod
Banned andybytes@programming.dev from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1, 4
expires: in 27 days
6 days ago
mod
Banned ayamohamed [she/her]@hexbear.net from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: in 17 hours
23 days ago
mod
Banned Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1, 2, 4
expires: in 1 month
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment if humans need to eat, need shelter, and need a place to stand, any "socialism/communism" concept would need to start with an accomodation for feeding/sheltering/giving a space to everyone. dont "label" it away, just cause im trying to do something new, and youre used to arguing for pre-existing theories! youre pre-existing theories had their chance. by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment please read the above "long" comment i wrote, in full ^ see it? the really long one i wrote to someone else. this should answer your comment by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment please read the above "long" comment i wrote, in full ^ see it? the really long one i wrote to someone else. this should answer your comment by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment ok all youre convincing me of is i should come up with my own name for own ideas, but, how will i pass it then to the only people who would care about it, the people who are already into the most similar idea, only called "socialism/communism" so far? how bout "a new socialism/communism"? no? okay well if i call it agrarian utopianism youre gonna call me pol pot; im not fucking pol pot!!!! hahahaha geez. that guy was a total tool and fool, and no subsequent idea of a system that includes thoughts about general sustenance should be "labelled away" uncritically. meanwhile, i think, and im the one doing the thinking here, that actually my system is more reminiscent otherwise of what was called socialism/communism, because this idea above isnt the whole of it, this is the just the start of it. Its not "only this" ^. i have lots of ideas for how everything else would go on top of this. this is just sort of the "first right" on my "world bill of rights". if i started reading the bill of rights to you, would you cut me off after the first sentence and say, "thats not enough, and thats dumb!" ? haha. i dont see why anyone could possibly disagree with me about this above ^ people need food to live. maybe i should come up with own name for it, how bout "fancy space pants", the system. what group does that go in. anyway if you wouldnt want to work on a farm to grow free food to give to others for free (a lot of people dont), would you at least want to make it so that anyones able to grow their own food? isnt that fair enough? more fair? how bout you could also have communal farms if you wanted, but this way, people dont even have to work on those if they dont want to, and they can still feed themself. maximum freedom is one of the goals of this system. a lack of freedom mind you is one thing that people hated about communism. this isnt libertarianism either. this is a complete, rethinking, of "the system" (whatever it is), from the ground up, this is just the very first item/conversation of that larger conversation. this is where it starts- the most fair way- i think- and id love to hear comments about making it even more fair if possible, which i havent heard yet. just "hey wait this isnt marxism!" like i said to begin with, this isnt marxism, in so many words. yet, marxism is otherwise the closest historical precedent to any idea like this. cmon this does not go in "shitposting", the community. or "memes", the community. cmon this goes right here. you can deal with someone rethinking marxism, marxists. you can also deal with someone outdoing marxism. marx was no savior or wed all be saved. admit it needs a little work somehow as a concept. actually i do have a name for the whole eventual system, i call it either "freetime communism" or "science communism" (or "planet vulcan"), and i can explain these. its not quite like marxist communism but i do think thats the closest word otherwise for the concept. there are basic things that all people need; we start a system that handles those. there are things people want beyond the basic necessity; we do a system that handles those also. in the end mine looks something like ok agrarian communism mixed with science mixed with freetime and some capitalism. its kind of like a hybridized system that takes care of everyones needs and wants, as long as theyre decent. takes care of three kinds of people sufficiently: if you want to do as little as possible, work with others as little as possible, and just live and enjoy life on your own, ok this system provides that to those people. if you want to pursue as much pleasure as possible, ok you can spend your time doing that. it can include trying to acquire wealth; you need to at least come up with something to trade others, and the people who want to do that can have a system of money on top of the other things between each other. their basic needs are being met, but if they want to start luxury restaurants or build luxury watches or whatever, they can do that and trade those things with each other, they can even have their own system of currency for that between each other. but, in this system, its not like that deprives anyone else of the ability to eat or live. in this system you wouldnt need money; money would be an available option though for people who want that for luxury goods trade between each other- this is for the purpose of not restricting peoples freedom, as much as possible- this is the major problem people have with communism. now for my third type of person, the one that im really supportive of and want to emphasize- the people who see the value of just being scientists and using their working time for that- my hope would be that most people would want to just be a type of scientist for their dayjob, and the most obvious feature of this system would be lots of collective laboratories basically and research groups, exploration groups. my hope would be that most people would want to work on science discovery, environment/ocean/space exploration, invention. i think if you made it so that nobody needed to worry about basic survival in life, then everyone would want to do something really meaningful with their life instead of "just a definitely reliable job of any type to make money" which results of course in all of us wasting our time. science is the best thing we have and how we define ourselves; the animals that have tools and knowledge so they dont have to be just animals. (even though my system provides at a start for how we could all just be animals). thats just to take the pressure off, so that no ones like "well i have to join an office job where ill push papers around, cause those are the most stable jobs and i can definitely get one". cmon thats not an impressive general use of humans' time. humans are impressive for their inventions and discoveries and collective knowledge; we should emphasize that. retool ourselves to just really focus on that as a community. i think we should basically keep normal work hours that we've already established, like 9-5 M-F, and everyone can still do whatever they want for fun and pleasure in their freetime and on their weekends. but i think basically you should take care of everyones basic needs in the most efficient, sensible, fair way practicable, and then basically give them all science jobs, with a provision for how if anyone really doesnt want to do that they dont have to, and if anyone really just prefers the older way of doing things, theyre still able to do something like it. its like communism but with freedom and with sensible direction, a purpose. a thoughtful, decent purpose. when humans arent using their best talents (vocal cords and opposable thumbs allowing them to share, store, and build collective knowledge, and, to build any kind of tool or move the earth in any manner, transport themselves however they please, etcetera).... when arent doing the best things theyre capable of theyre wasting their time. by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment no im not, because these basic plots of land would be given to each person by everyone else; making it a novel sort of communism or socialism; it's a pro-social, communal ownership, overall. the plots are essentially communally owned; if you die it goes to a next person. it's completely free to you and you don't pay taxes on it. it's your private piece of land while you're alive, but all the land is owned and distributed by all the humans at once, collectively. it's based on the idea that all people have a right to live as a native, if they want, and they should at a minimum be provided with the ability to do this. you should be able to live as a native, at a minimum, without being bothered. this system provides that basic sustenance. i think this is the minimum right of any human, which is a sort of feral animal after all on this planet like any other. the great shame of modern life is that we've taken away the ability of anyone to take care of themselves naturally- you have to do a series of other unrelated things just to get food- this takes care of that, from the beginning. no pressure to compete for a job or to start a gang, just so you can eat. youre an animal. you should be able to eat and live for free, at a basic minimum, on planet earth. you should be able to have a sustenance plot somewhere. in fact, this should be a free, basic right, that you use as basis to reform the world over. it starts with this idea. everyone has a right to be an animal- thats what they are- so everyone should have a right, and an ability, to live off nature in the normal sense. in our society, no one is given land to begin with, and its hard to get, and its all owned, and you have to pay taxes on it, and youre not just given food or this stuff called money that you otherwise need to get food, and to get that stuff called money you have to do x y and z and jump through a series of other hoops, and it becomes distanced from actual survival to a point where people feel insanely pressured, and it ends with them cheating against each other to get ahead because they think life is so unfair and hard. lets make it easy on everyone, no pressure. if you just want to live lets basically equip everyone to do that. then lets rebuild the good stuff about the rest of our society back up on top of this system. if you want to do more than just live, whats good to do? what other activities beside just living should be encouraged? can you admit that more than half the stuff that most people do is total bullshit and a waste of everyone's collective time? science is worthwhile, art and pleasure are worthwhile. go ahead name something else. science includes all discovery, all exploration, all invention. by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment marxism-leninism and its direct subsidiaries are known for several catastrophic, millions-killing, devastation-famines, most notably in russia, china, and cambodia, as a result of communal farms that were atrociously poorly planned by people with no idea how to plan farms who were just eager communist beaureacrats. this disgusting track record certainly needs someone rethinking it. my system is nothing like those failed attempts. by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment ive looked at prior history and theory plenty! i think it would be better to rewrite and rethink it from scratch. i am very, and completely, familiar with the history of marx/socialism/communism and the states that have tried those. i dont need any lectures on those! by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1
23 days ago
mod
Removed Comment "in the middle ages there were famines every few years" nope and my system would obviously prevent that by Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 1, 2
23 days ago
mod
Banned Archon_Warslut@lemmy.world from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1
expires: 9 days ago
1 month ago
mod
Banned Archangel1313@lemmy.ca from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1
expires: 1 month ago
1 month ago
mod
Unbanned Archangel1313@lemmy.ca from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
1 month ago
mod
Banned Archangel1313@lemmy.ca from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
1 month ago
mod
Banned andybytes@programming.dev from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 2
expires: 1 month ago
1 month ago
mod
Banned andybytes@programming.dev from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 2
expires: 1 month ago
1 month ago
mod
Removed Comment suck it turd by andybytes@programming.dev
reason: Rule 2
2 months ago
mod
Banned DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.dbzer0.com from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: stochastic parrot sealion troll
2 months ago
mod
Banned 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1
expires: in 9 days
2 months ago
mod
Removed Post Century of humiliation
reason: Rule 1
2 months ago
mod
Banned TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾@lemmy.blahaj.zone from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: 28 days ago
2 months ago
mod
Banned Insekticus@aussie.zone from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Antisocialist
3 months ago
mod
Banned 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 4
expires: 3 months ago
5 months ago
mod
Removed Comment The Soviet Union was about as socialist as North Korea is democratic. by yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
reason: Rule 1
5 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Uhhh, you know two things can both be bad simultaneously, right? The Soviet Union was a merciless colonizing empire that subjugated and poisoned everything it touched. That’s what empires do. by yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
reason: Rule 1
5 months ago
mod
Banned yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com from the community Socialism@lemmy.ml
reason: Rule 1
6 months ago
mod
Removed Post Losurdo's Lies
reason: Anti-communism
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Oh my points are perfectly clear and at the very top of this thread. They'll reach who they need to reach to diffuse your message and serve their purpose just fine. There's no real point in engaging with a jingoist seriously; the only point is to put their contradictions on display and then allow for the audience to decide. by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 2
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment You don't even notice it do you? by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 2
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment You’re trying to equate Marxism with positivism by saying both are “evolving frameworks,” but that misses the critical difference. In positivism, a theory is only valid if it can be operationalized into falsifiable predictions, if evidence could, in principle, prove it wrong. Marxism, however, is built on historical materialism and dialectics: frameworks that re-interpret contradictory evidence rather than allow themselves to be falsified. For example, if a revolution fails, Marxism doesn’t conclude “the theory was wrong,” it concludes “the conditions weren’t ripe” or “false consciousness intervened.” That’s not falsification, that’s insulation. So no, it’s not the same stance. Positivism makes truth provisional, always pending empirical rejection. Marxism makes truth theoretical, with data read through a lens that already knows the shape of history. That’s the exact inversion I was pointing out, and “read theory” is just the clearest evidence of it. Also, keep the jingoism and inability to understand the distinction up. Its convincing more people to reject your approach than anything I could ever come up with. by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 2
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment Every time you open your mouth you just redefine words until you can pretend you’ve won. You sound like a cultist explaining why the prophecy didn’t fail, it was just misinterpreted. Marxism isn’t science, it’s just moving the goalposts forever so you can LARP as a revolutionary. At the end of the day Marxism sits in the same bucket as Keynesian or Chicago-school economics: grand pseudoscience unable to put forward falsifiable statements, reinterpreting and cherry picking data to fit its framework. And if you think > you picked the wrong method for the wrong audience ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/58e90d86-7efb-4baa-a8dd-cedcc67383e5.gif) by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 2
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment > Why would anyone trust what you have to say on the matter when you’ve demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding? You really want to know? ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8ad7f59b-6b1d-4522-ab17-6fe6b230746f.png) By reading this thread and coming to a conclusion based on the back and forth we've had. Your challenge is that your repetitious assumptions are only convincing to yourself and others who make the same, frankly lazy, approach to determining where truth comes from. Exchanges like this are purely demonstrative, and thankfully, the simpletons who post things like "read theory", always out themselves and the lack of rigor they bring to their thinking. And its fine. I don't mind the back and forth. And I get that you don't get it, and I don't mind that either. But to be clear, I'm not trying to convince *you* per se; I'm just putting the gaps in your thinking on display. by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 2
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment You use the word “we” like you’ve got a mouse in your pocket. It’s a matter of how we^1^ get at truth, and where the burden of truth actually lies. Marx might have wanted to borrow some of the authority of science, to ground his claims in something that looked like repeatable law, but the way people throw around jingoist statements like “read theory” makes it obvious they aren’t doing that. Scientific positivists (explicitly not Marxists, and predating Marxism) take a fundamentally different approach to truth. For a positivist, truth means empirically demonstrable, observable, and falsifiable claims. Theory is always secondary, a tool to organize facts, never a scripture. "Truth" and "Theory" in scientific positivism is a tauroid of confidence around the constant kernal of uncertainty; without the ability to reject "theory" or "truth", its not "true" in scientific positivism. Marxist theory, on the other hand, places theory first and demands facts be interpreted through it. To meet even the bare minimum standard of scientific positivism, Marxist claims would have to be built in such a way that they could be tested and allowed to be falsified. Most of the time they’re not, and the rhetorical shield of “read theory” just underscores that gap. There are paths one can take to get to socialism and never bother with Marx or the associated teleological body of theory. 1: Scientific positivists by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Misinfo
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment > call me a jingoist (lol) ... > vulgar positivism ![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c03d0b9f-fcb5-4926-a220-78f05b9e7943.gif) ml flunkies briggading isn't a sign of anything. by TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 2
6 months ago
mod
Removed Comment *Permanently Deleted* by Treetrimmer
reason: Rule 1, 2
7 months ago
mod
Removed Comment In 1919, when Lenin said this, he was using the army to forcibly extract grain from peasants. That was the gist of "war communism" which was the Russian economy from 1918 to 1921. There was a lot of violence involved. That strategy lead to a famine that killed millions of people. That was around the same time that Lenin refused to allow urban workers to unionize. It was technically Trotsky who said that it didn't make sense for workers to have a union when they already had the Communist Party to represent them. But Lenin was standing behind him. And of course the same period saw the Red Terror, during which Lenin's people executed tens of thousands of Russians. Back in 1917, after the February revolution, the governing political body was the Duma which had a very strong socialist membership, and which was planning elections. There were also the soviets exerting powerful pressure on the Duma. The soviets were democratic, and entirely socialist. There were paths to a democratic-socialist state. But Lenin threw all that out, dissolved the Duma, and turned the soviets into apparatuses of the Communist Party because he thought no one else could do socialism correctly. And Russia got decades of authoritarianism. IMO Lenin is emblematic of the destructive outcomes of refusing to work with others who don't share your particular political philosophy. by hallettj@leminal.space
reason: Rule 1
9 months ago
mod
Removed Post Global voter turnout has been in decline since the 1960s – we wanted to find out why
reason: Dupe
9 months ago
mod
Removed Post Global Voter turnout in decline.
reason: Dupe
9 months ago
mod
Removed Post Global voter turnout has been in decline since the 1960s – we wanted to find out why
reason: Dupe
9 months ago
mod
Removed Post Global voter turnout has been in decline since the 1960s – we wanted to find out why
reason: Dupe
11 months ago
mod
Removed Post Poll: AOC leads Schumer in head-to-head New York primary matchup by double digits
reason: Wrong community
1 year ago
mod
Restored Post What (if anything) is intrinsically Wrong with Capitalism. Philippe van Parijs
1 year ago
mod
Removed Post What (if anything) is intrinsically Wrong with Capitalism. Philippe van Parijs
reason: Capitalist apologetics
1 year ago
mod
Removed Post I am Ayah Mohammad, and I need your help for my family in Gaza 💔
reason: Offtopic
1 year ago
mod
Removed Post What is your opinion about this?
reason: Rule 1
1 year ago
mod
Removed Post Why the Russian Revolution Failed: When Rich Kids do all the Socialism
reason: Rules
2 years ago
mod
Removed Post Why Black Markets Thrive in Socialist Economies
reason: Rule 1 and 2
3 years ago
mod
Removed Post Socialism Will Never Work
reason: trolling