communist (PSL ☭) unix nerd who likes to unplug

fountain pen + traveler’s notebook, long hair + hats, photography, and spinning indie records that could be cooler than yours (but probably aren’t)

liverpool fc supporter - you’ll never walk alone

homepage: ~savoy

  • 32 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 5th, 2020

help-circle







  • Apple.

    I uses to be a huge Apple fan pre-2010. Everything worked, was smooth, wasn’t Windows, and it was fun trying out the terminal despite it being pretty useless for most things on Mac.

    At the new decade is when it felt like Apple was becoming what it is today: a walled garden with priority of mobile devices at the detriment of Macintosh. Started to really look at Linux as an alternative (only tried Ubuntu in a VM around the time of Unity coming out) early 2010s, but didn’t make the full leap until around 2013 when I installed Linux Mint and got a Raspberry Pi to begin to mess around with. Now I solely run a mix of Debian and Void on all my machines and I couldn’t be happier.






















  • There’s a lot of info and discussion on this post that explains why. Pretty much that voting has never been private on other platforms as votes must be tied to users, otherwise users could add more than one vote per post. And this data must also be federated so that other instances’ posts are also safeguarded.

    Lemmy isn’t designed as a privacy platform, it’s a socia media type link aggregator powered by ActivityPub. And with this federation brings decentralization, where it’s possible to not share data with other instances, but it will have to be shared in some way with any linked instances. There are pros/cons to each style: the current issues with Reddit show the problems with centralization, and there’s going to be an adjustment period as more people join Lemmy who don’t already know about the Fedi.









  • The issue with communist discussion online is that many, more so the very online ones, place themselves in direct opposition of what liberals bring up, which in this case is that Zelensky is some “freedom fighter” while Putin is evil and genocidal. The liberal thinking is clearly wrong as Putin is not either of those, but the internet doesn’t always leave space for discussion and education; liberals refuse to see anything else and parrot what the capitalists tell them. Paired with internet culture of dunking on them, it’s easy for the very online to counteract it with what you’re describing as it’s a bigger pushback and more inflammatory.

    The line should not be “critical support of Putin” but of focusing the argument on the point that the US and especially NATO. Debating whether Putin is good or bad isn’t a good use of time: he’s a product of the material conditions of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and the continued push by NATO on surrounding Russia in an attempt to choke them politically and economically. Otherwise it’s a mud-slinging fight of Zelensky vs Putin.

    You bring this up, but it’s clear that many still try to lump Putin into the category of anti-imperialist leaders like Assad (to whom critical support makes more sense on anti-imperialist lines). It just shows how important it is to have professional & organized Marxist-Leninist parties that abide by democratic centralism. You have your party line and all members push and follow it, despite whatever internal discussion may be had.


  • This is what makes our group different from the white anarchist — besides he views his group as already free. Now he’s striving for freedom of his individual self. This is the big difference. We’re not fighting for freedom of our individual selves, we’re fighting for a group freedom.

    This is the clearest description on the fundamental core of anarchism; Huey put it perfectly. It just shows that anarchists have more in common foundationally with libertarians than actual socialists. Anarchists are individualists, and as such, see any fight towards the collective liberation of society at odds with their line of thinking. It’s also why anarchism is predominantly seen as a Western phenomena; individualism is central to capitalism, and especially the US (i.e. “rugged individualists”), so in ther mind they attempt to consolidate the two forms of thinking: they want to keep the benefits of being the privileged of the world in the center of imperialism and keep in line with its alienated and individualist nature, but twist what liberation would mean for the working class into an edgy ideology of “no gods, no masters”.

    Anarchism or Socialism really hones in on that point as well.

    The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.” The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.”

    Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.