Ich glaube der idiomatische weg communities zu teilen ist dieser:

!tja@feddit.de

Ich habe gelesen es gäbe clients (das web interface evtl?!) die bei einem https link auf eine fremd-instanz den user nicht “mitnehmen”

Edit: interessanterweise unterstüzt infinity diesen weg nicht, den https link aber schon. Jerboa kommt mit beiden klar

Ich übernehm das mal, geht ja schnell:

https://nitter.net/_FriedrichMerz/status/1687762994720075776

Capitalism is when iPhone

There was obviously never a communist state as you have correctly depicted communism is a goal. No argument there.

I also agree that you can make the point the USSR wasn’t socialist, but that was also not what I was arguing for. (Spoiler: I describe the USSR as “state socialist”)

I was arguing against calling the USSR capitalist, even state capitalist, and I stand by it.

the desire to use the words by their meaning

Capitalism is defined through private (not personal) property – There was no private property. I think that should be enough to dismiss the notion the USSR was capitalist in amy capacity. But it also lacked competitive markets, “free” price systems and a ubiquitous profit motive, finance capital and certainly more characteristics.

Regarding the ownership of the means of production: I already agreed with you that it was not owned by the workers. However, being state owned, it was public ownership. You can say that isn’t totally fair to you bc the name implies a level of participation of the people in the state which wasn’t there, but their collective interests still somewhat mattered where today rules the profit motive (i.e. housing). That is not to say that planning, production and distribution did not fail the people often, they certainly did.

Since we were also talking about intent to build up a socialist system: When you look at it in the early days when it started out as a soviet republic, with worker soviets sending delegates to parent soviets cascading and culminating into the supreme soviet, the idea certainly was to create a state with (if not control then) direct expression of the workers interests. In that sense state ownership would be justified much more. This is also what has led me to call the system “state socialism”.

The soviet union did definitively degrade hence I concede that it is well possible that initial intent to build socialism did not exist in late stage USSR leadership, I don’t know much about that, to be honest and if that is what you experienced as a child I believe you.

But that this intent drove the initial conception should be obvious or do you think the writings of Lenin/Stalin and the internationals were all a big charade to get to power?

The degradation of the USSR, the communist party specifically, is one point why I mentioned the soviet union is an example to learn from. I believe Maoists have derived from that the principle of self-revolution within the party.

In the end to rationally learn from it is the important part, as long as we can do that it isn’t important how its economic system is called or even if it was “good” or “evil” or whatever. And while I have opinions they honestly aren’t always strongly held, as there is a lot to learn. Its just a mechanism of online discussions and them being overwhelmingly bad-faithed that brings that out

[The USSR] was state capitalism economically

That statement is not valid and I can’t understand where its decisiveness comes from. The enonomy was centrally planned, nobody respectable calls the USSR “state capitalist”

Russia was never even close to starting to try to attempt communism

IMO the urge to conclude this comes from having to reconcile two believes: First that “the USSR was evil” and secondly an interest in communism.

People affected can then either decide to denounce communism or reevaluate and deepen their knowledge of the USSR.

The latter option is often incomprehensible, so a third option is contrieved: decoupling one from the other.

I applaud you that you could uphold whatever positive view you hold of communism and instead settle for the last option rather than denouncing communism.

However the USSR obviously absolutely seriously tried to develop their country towards communism. A lot went wrong, mistakes were made even crimes committed.

But you also have to see the context of the times. The statehood is repealed in a revolution and you need to rebuild it. all the while a couple of the strongest nations on earth invade you and fund a civil war in your country also your people are poor. Then the behemoth war machine of the nazis invades. After you beat them, costing you 30 million people, the biggest power in history declares you their enemy.

A lot went extremely well compared to that: No society was ever development that quickly before and only China managed to pull this of as well. For a brief moment in the 60s life expectancy in the USSR was higher than in the US.

Wherever you stand: The USSR is something to learn from, successes and mistakes. Keeping them in the “evil” corner is just falling for propaganda.

militarizing space now might be about the phenomenon

Just to be clear I did NOT have a shortage of explanations for the interest to militarize space. That was already a given, much more so than any phenomena

seems that several Congress members, from both parties, are interested in unveiling where trillions of dollars went by the military

In the Oversight committee on national security? No way.

Its crazy how different interpretations can be. I was constantly roling my eyes listening to that hearing

it breaks up the boring monotony of giving endless checks to the Pentagon.

Does it? Or is it just the foreplay for more endless checks for the pentagon to weaponize space

Its worthwhile reading Caitlin on the matter (as it is for every matter)

She correlates the partly obvious bait with the desire to weaponize space

I think you’re taking it too personal.

If it makes you feel better, for me its not about the phenomenon at all.

Its about the source not having any credibility when topics touching militarism and war are concerned.

And since an interest exists to weaponize space and this narrative fits the bill it might be true or not, but a comitte hearing, the pentagon or the intelligence community are as helpful in finding the truth as blindly guessing.

You’re right ofc if you wanted to make a general remark, but wrong if you thought that was what I was implying. Never store hash histories, kids!

That’s the point though.

You’re not supposed to have the old password. If you had the old password you could just compare it to the new password.

The only way you can do it is to take the new password and make a hash for every possible single-character variation and compare them all to the old hash

How would they know how many digits changed? They don’t store the password in cleartext.

Right?

…

If only there was a school of thought and associated branches of science that lay out the systemic shortcomings which necessitate this condition since the 18hundreds and on which a solution absolutely can be build.

But alas its consequences entail the discontinuation of global exploitation and the dethroning of the capital class who benefit from it and who exert control over the political, media, and academic classes thought to be necessary to bring about systemic changes.

Yes, yes I remember those pictures of the burning Hindenburg tumbling to the ground

much like in 1998, when The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table