Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
The governments in Kyiv and Oslo are having “ongoing discussions” that may lead to Ukraine domestically producing a new missile for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, according to officials at Norway’s largest defense manufacturer.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
A Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bomber crashed in the Irkutsk region of southeastern Siberia due to a technical malfunction, local governor Igor Kobzev said on Wednesday.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
It’s a more extensive use of the app than previously reported and sheds new light on how commonly the Trump administration’s national security team relies on Signal.
New baby formula standards were designed to prioritise infant nutrition and take the pressure off parents. But for formula companies, profits were at stake. And that's when the lobbying kicked in.
Concerns about misleading marketing claims on the tins was one of the reasons public health experts from New Zealand and Australia spent the past decade writing a set of regulations that would prioritise infant nutrition above all other interests.
Over 11 years, officials commissioned 36 public reports, five consumer studies and 40 stakeholder workshops, and wrote draft after draft. The regulations were all but signed and due to be implemented this year.
But in August, the government opted out of the trans-Tasman proposal last-minute, citing costs to exporters. While Australia will implement the new standards in 2030, New Zealand now intends to develop its own.
This RNZ investigation uses background interviews with industry insiders, officials and experts as well as documents obtained under the Official Information Act to show how the formula industry lobbied the government to put private profit before public health, and won.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Full list of new tarrifs (credit to @jeena@piefed.jeena.net)
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Trump's approval rating dropped to 43%, the lowest since his January return to office, amid backlash over new tariffs and a mishandled military strike disclosure.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll found only 37% approve of his economic leadership, and 34% support his foreign policy.
A majority view his tariff hikes as harmful, while 74% criticized the use of Signal to discuss a Yemen operation.
The poll, conducted online with 1,486 adults, showed bipartisan concern and a 2-point decline since March, reflecting rising unease over Trump's policies.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Can you imagine a profound shock for him to realize that China surpassed the US technologically. This one trip basically turned his whole world upside down.
A lot of middle-class people in China are unhappy right now. For more than a decade, many Chinese put their money into buying apartments instead of putting their savings in banks that paid virtually no interest. This created a huge housing bubble. Many people rode it up and then rode it down when the government tightened real estate lending in 2020.
So they are hoarding their cash because their real estate profits are gone but the government pension and health care payments are meager. Everyone has to save for a rainy day.
Won’t somebody please think of the bourgeoisie’s profits!
As my colleague Keith Bradsher just reported, the economic slowdown is depriving the Beijing government of the very tax revenues it needs to stimulate the economy and subsidize “the export industries that are driving economic growth but could be hurt by tariffs.”
NYT economists still don’t know how fiat money works.
Sshutle? It essentially makes traffic go through ssh from anywhere to anywhere. If you ssh into your machine, use sshuttle towards your local machine, I think you should be good
ssh to remote, forwarding some remote port to your local ssh port (-R)
ssh from remote through the exposed port, starting socks proxy in the process (-D)
use socks proxy explicitly or find some tool that can route the traffic into it
Similar approach can be used to establish VPN tunnel with no encryption (ssh already provides that), routing everything but your ssh connection through it.
ssh to remote, reverse forwarding your VPN-over-tcp server’s listening port
establish vpn connection on remote, route everything but your ssh connection through the newly established interface
IDK anything about "routing" but I don't think it can solve this problem without additional services.
If my laptop is A and I want all outbound connections to go through server B then B needs to be running some kind of service whether it's merely a NAT router or VPN or proxy.
In this case OP actually want's B's outbound connections to go through A but it's the same problem.
Love that you put it in quotes as if to be sarcastic. Hilarious.
This is basically how the entire Internet works, but you know that from your post. Surely you also know that traffic gets "routed" from place A to B all the time without SSH as well.
So if you want to "route" a remote instance back to another place, you:
1) Set routing rules on the intended origin 2) Set default route on the remote client 3) Set restricted firewall rules so both the origin and client are allowed to talk to each other 4) Traffic is routed
Another alternative is using Tailscale and setting an exit node on your network, which is essentially the same thing.
But you already knew that, and that's why you chimed in with your comment. Stupid me.
I've been playing around with networks for decades. I'll happily admit that my understanding is rudimentary at best, but configuring routing rules with IP tables or whatever so your device will act as a NAT seems a few levels beyond "basic networking".
that's why you chimed in with your comment. Stupid me.
The honest to god reason I chimed in was because your response seemed derisive, and I thought I might be able to soften a bit by either showing my own ineptitude or challenging your solution.
So in summary you have your device A and services running on B, you connect to a vpn service using A, and you want the services running on B to use the same vpn connection?
I encountered this problem with torrenting and private trackers.
I solved it the other way around, by having the remote connect to the vpn and routing traffic from my device through that remote.
get a mullvad subscription because they do wireguard
create wireguard-outbound container on server and connect to mullvad
create wireguard-inbound container on server and attach it to the network stack of wireguard-outbound
attach any other containers on the server you want using the vpn to the network stack of wireguard-outbound
install wireguard on your various devices instead of connecting to mullvad directly just connect to your wireguard-inbound container
For bonus points you can create a squid (proxy service) container and attach that to wireguard-outbound, then create a firefox profile that connects to that proxy. That way your device isn't routing all traffic through the vpn, only the traffic from that firefox profile.
I've had this set up for several years now and for the most part it works very well. Occasionally I have to restart the containers but for the most part it's great.
Well, you don't need containers for wireguard the same way you don't need containers for anything.
I personally prefer docker containers for everything that can be containerised because it provides a consistent abstraction layer. As in, I always know how to find configurations and paths and manage network infrastructure for anything that resides in a container.
In the case I outlined above with the wireguard containers, I'm more confident I'm not going to upset any other services on my server, and I understand the configuration.
Maybe it's a bit like using ufw to manage iptables rules, unnecessary but helpful.
Of course, I freely admit that my way is not necessarily the best way and if someone wants to run wireguard on the host then great.
One use for wireguard in a container is that if you're using other containers on the same host you can use container magic to route the traffic of specific containers through the wireguard tunnel, while other containers bypass the tunnel.
You can but it kind of sucks and you would only normally do it on a very temporary hacky basis. Otherwise use OpenVPN or Wireguard or whatever. If you want to do it with ssh, see the VPN instructions on the man page. But I mean it's janky.
Wire guard + some nft tables or ip tables rules is a much better solution.
Ssh on itself can do the port forward part but for the routing you still need the above mentioned rules. In addition, ssh will not autoreconnect if anything happens and you need to add autossh or some other solution to keep it rolling.
I'm not sure if you can do it without authenticating on the remote. Have you seen sshuttle? Maybe you can run that on the remote to connect to the local machine. If the issue is that the remote "can't see" the local machine to ssh into it then you could try something like reverse tunnel the ssh port to the remote, and then use sshuttle to connect to the local port that is forwarding traffic.
Wireguard might be what you want. You connect to your remote machine ( assume it is at home). You can setup what traffic goes over wireguard (some or all). On your home machine you can run port forward command and masquerading command once connected on home machine so that you have full lan access too. It is described in the wireguard setup docs.
They were too busy trying to figure out how to maximalist product placement shots than to actually make scene or even just fucking make sense
IstALLAH (SWT) when the artists are finally freed from the economic slavery of working in Starbucks and the writers are finally provided a decent union-guaranteed pay, the explosion of art will grow the hearts and minds for decades
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Emails reveal that Social Security Administration acting chief Leland Dudek canceled Maine’s vital records contracts as retaliation against Democratic Gov. Janet Mills after she clashed with Trump.
Despite warnings this could increase identity theft and fraud, Dudek said, “no money will go from the public trust to a petulant child.”
The termination briefly blocked parents from obtaining Social Security numbers for newborns. Dudek reversed the decision within 24 hours amid backlash.
Lawmakers called for his resignation. Dudek, a former IT staffer, was controversially elevated after aiding Elon Musk’s DOGE team.
President Donald Trump has launched the United States into a trade war, the likes of which has not been seen in decades. On April 2, 2025, the date that the president and his advisers are calling “Liberation Day,” the Trump administration is expected to announce a sweeping set of tariffs against “all countries.”
The Trump administration’s “reciprocal tariffs” are ostensibly designed to charge other countries what they charge the United States—an eye-for-an-eye approach to trade relations. Given their regressive nature, the economic burden of the Trump administration’s tariffs will fall on U.S. consumers—particularly low- and middle-income households—as well as on U.S. producers that rely on imports to manufacture in the United States.
White House aide Peter Navarro recently said that the administration’s new auto tariffs, for example, would raise $100 billion annually and that other tariffs would generate $600 billion annually. This comes at a time when the administration is looking for opportunities to raise substantial revenue to offset the cost of massive tax breaks for its wealthiest donors. Taking Navarro’s numbers at face value, the Center for American Progress estimates Trump’s tariffs could cost American households an average of $5,200 every year.
The Trump administration has already placed 25 percent duties on most imports from the United States’ two largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico; imposed 20 percent tariffs on Chinese imports; and last week announced a 25 percent tariff on all imported cars and auto parts. Taken together, these actions—and the retaliatory measures they have already provoked—will cause significant damage to the U.S. economy. They are likely to reduce job prospects; raise prices for electricity, cars, and other everyday goods; and ultimately make it harder for businesses to compete in global markets.
This article raises questions about the cost of Trump’s reckless trade wars for Americans. Will Trump’s trade wars affect U.S. jobs? Will they increase or decrease working families’ prosperity? Will the administration’s policies position the country’s industrial base to compete effectively in the future? And, recognizing that economic supply chains and security challenges are heavily interconnected, what will the consequence be for U.S. foreign relations?
Sadly... that doesn't really track with Christianity.
I mean you can add the overall benefits of everyones needs are automatically met. There's no talk of toiling for food etc...
But on top of the automatic fact that angels clearly have a hierarchy, god is clearly a full power ruler, there's tons of verses that talk about people that will be the least in heaven, or greatest in heaven (Matthew 5:19). On top of building treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19) etc...
Even the more devout Christians I know (who actually have opinions about different theological positions) believe Earth and human society should not be modeled on heaven and attempts to do so will fail due to humans being inherently / essentially Fallen. This is part of how they rationalize their resistance / apathy towards movements for justice, at the very least they believe it is futile to seek justice in this life.
I don't agree that it is doomed to fail, but I also don't believe humans are inherently Fallen, and especially not in the particular soteriological sense that Christians believe (i.e. all later generations have inherited the guilt from the single act of disobedience by Adam & Eve dooming all of humanity to endless toil and suffering, as well as an evil nature).
That said, I do think humans behave in sometimes predictable ways, and it might be useful to look at what kinds of choices about society might alleviate suffering and promote well-being and fairness in society.
That said, I don't think that's going to happen without significant social upheaval, and that itself seems to bring about a lot of violence and the kinds of suffering I think we should all avoid ... so, yeah - these are hard problems.
So, the people you have in mind don't believe in free will? Isn't that kind of un-Christian?
And if they believe that humans don't have free will, then what's the point of all the “SINNERS!” and punishment and threats of hell and whatnot? None of us are in meaningful control of our actions, so trying to coerce us to change those actions obviously isn't going to work.
Also, if we're all inherently evil, then we're all going to hell regardless, so this whole religion is kinda pointless, no?
Yes, the Christians I am talking about believe in predestination, and they disagree with, for example, Baptists about whether people can save other people or whether people can save themselves. Instead they believe God predetermines who ends up being saved or not, through the grace of God alone.
And to answer your question about what is the ultimate point if there is no motivation through free-will, their answer is usually either "it's a mystery" or "to glorify God".
They still believe in a kind of free-will, but only within the confines of God's pre-determined choices. God chose for you, but it was you that did the choosing and are responsible. One explanation I was given is that you make the choice out of free-will, and then God observes your choice and then goes back in time and determines it from the beginning. It's not a coherent view, as far as I can tell - there is no compelling logical or reasonable compatibilist account they offer, it just sounds like contradiction and fantastic thinking.
Also, their view is that our nature is fallen (total depravity), and the only good is from God and God chooses who receives the gift of salvation and thus who will become cured of their evil nature. They believe they should do good things and proselytize to convert others to Christianity because God commands them to, not because those things will save themselves or anyone else. Obedience is very important to this mindset.
Nice write up. I often think of this verse from the first book of the new testament in the King James bible.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Also, the bible tells us literally nothing about how heaven actually works or what people even do there. Meanwhile Marx wrote extensively about how he thinks a communist system would work. Heaven is not a "system" we can conceivably implement, because there's nothing to implement. It's just an abstract concept, and a very broad and ambiguous one at that.
This is part of how they rationalize their resistance / apathy towards movements for justice, at the very least they believe it is futile to seek justice in this life.
Sounds like bullshit an unjust leader would feed them.
My concept of Christianity is rather expansive, and Christian anarchists are often inspired by Tolstoy, who is someone I have read about and whose works I have given some attention. I can confirm they are rather different than most Christians - Tolstoy in particular rejected the Church after he saw they were committed to enabling war, which is clearly un-Christian. Dorothy Day is another relevant Christian anarchist, and I have worked with a Catholic Workers House locally, so I have some IRL exposure to these folks as well.
I tend to think "Christian" is an almost meaningless term without more context or clarification, people who call themselves Christians hold opposite views on many different positions. "Buddhism" is no different, if anything it is worse, so this isn't particular to Christianity. Nor is it particular to religion, Marx spent some time in the Communism Manifesto clarifying what he meant by "socialism" and the different kinds of socialism he was aware of - there are many such overloaded terms and concepts. It seems particularly common in any political context, where there is power struggle it seems there are struggles between meanings for a particular word.
On calories housing and most everyday things we are post scarcity if we ignore distribution. In fact we over commission and under deliver all these things. We over produce food by a factor of around 1.5, housing is much less transferable but even there we're unbelievably wastefull, energy is basically the only thing that isn't outright overproduced but really only because when we have cheap energy we just tend to use it, often to produce more stuff.
So imo we are by bookkeeping standards post scarcity, delivery/distribution is just fucked and partially because of that we are creating tons of waste.
We could all live in comfort and those who want to could work less, and none of this would break. The real world economy(things, energy, housing , food, water, logistics capabilities...) is so large and secure it could support the world population. If not for the barriers and assumptions, the intrinsic I've got mine fuck you of the systems.
For me that is being there, and I hope that even if you can't agree on that point, it at least illustrates that we are incredibly close to post scarcity.
I'm pretty sure most of this is is loosely from "Half earth socialism", which might not consider us already in post scarcity, but is at least sympathetic to the position while trying to approach the arguably more important factors,- climate change and biodiversity decline- through such a lens.
Examining how our lives could be lived, in accordance with the natural world systems, with a socialist organization of the world economy.
It's pretty readable as far as these books go, I think it might even be the first explicitly socialist book I read /listened to.
I actually take a critical eye to the word "work" itself and think that it's too encompassing a term. In our society it's a blanket word that covers all labor. From punitive, fruitless toil all the way up to invigorating, actualizing applications of trained skill. Lots of what we call "work" are actually things we could want for ourselves in a utopia and would miss without, while IRL we're currently on the crest of an economic trend in which the majority of society are trapped in ultimately meaningless and forgettable toil under wage coercion. Literally just being kept occupied and oppressed.
Put very simply I think you can slice our current idea of what work is into two halves, work that removes happiness from ourselves and society and work that adds happiness to ourselves and society. As utopians I think a society that contains only the latter is a reasonable prize to keep our eyes on.
Yes, I know communism is stateless. You shouldn't be so willing to think other people don't know what they're talking about. You should be more charitable.
Their belief is that Marxists are hypocritical for wanting public ownership of property and believing a government necessary for that, as they are of the belief that government and the state are the same for Marx, and rather than the "Administration of Things" that Engels speaks of, there would be a structure closer to Anarchism.
I'm not really saying much of anything beyond that you have a bone to pick with the mods, and that is the clearest explanation for why you made your original comment. I'm not trying to reduce you to anything, just draw on a similar situation from a few weeks ago.
I don't care that you have only a flimsy grasp of Marxism at best, or are a bad faith troll, we get those all the time. You're not even fun just repetitive and boring. I would ban you just for being a smug little shit.
It is, pretty much every communist including ML's here fully accept and support the notion that communism at the end is going to be stateless, as the state itself would become unnecessary. The differences come from the means which this end would be achieved.
The end? No, no, no. The point where the state is abolished is the beginning. We don't pack up and go home after we abolish the state. We live in the world we created. Everything before the state is abolished is preamble.
Yes, that's implicit - you build something in order to use/live in it. The end I was talking about was referring to the end of the gradual transformation from capitalism to communism, it's not an instant process.
I do feel that that wording can cause confusion. Marxists and Anarchists have a different view of what the state even is to begin with, and thus very different end goals. Marxists see the state as an implementation of class oppression, Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy.
As a consequence, Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned, democratic government, while Anarchists want decentralized networks of Communes. For Marxists, the Anarchist solution retains class distinctions as each commune only has internal ownership and thus class is retained, while for Anarchists the Marxist solution retains the state as it retains hierarchy.
This struggle over analysis drives the major distinctions between each major school of Leftist thought. That doesn't mean we do not share a common anti-capitalist and anti-Imperialist struggle, but it does mean the strategies and ends are different. If it was simply a question of strategy and timeline specifically, there would not be as much friction outside of explicitly non-sectarian spaces.
Why would OP be banned for that? That's what Marx literally stated. Marxists and Anarchists have different views on what the state is though, and thus both how to get rid of it and the final structure, so trying to claim Marx was using the Anarchist definition of the state to try to take the stance that Marx was an advocate for decentralized cooperatives and communes as a solution is wrong, if that was your implication.
Marxists see the state as an implementation of class oppression, Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy. As a consequence, Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned, democratic government, while Anarchists want decentralized networks of Communes. For Marxists, the Anarchist solution retains class distinctions as each commune only has internal ownership and thus class is retained, while for Anarchists the Marxist solution retains the state as it retains hierarchy.
This struggle over analysis drives the major distinctions between each major school of Leftist thought. That doesn’t mean we do not share a common anti-capitalist and anti-Imperialist struggle, but it does mean the strategies and ends are different. If it was simply a question of strategy and timeline specifically, there would not be as much friction outside of explicitly non-sectarian spaces.
Lemmy.ml is run by MLs for the most part, so even if this isn't an explicitly Communist instance there is Communist sympathy. The user you are replying to takes issue with that.
Nonsense, I'm a communist. I love it when people want to create a society where the workers own the means of production. I think you've made a false equivalence to reach that conclusion about me.
I'm using Communist to refer to what most people understand as Communist. I'm sure you have your own opinions on what that constitutes and how, but they are definitely not the standard or traditional readings of Marxist Communism.
Yeah, those are the two things you made a false equivalence between. Communism and Marxist Communism. If you think Marxism is the only kind of communism, you won't be able to acknowledge anarcho-communists. That's probably why a lot of people say you don't respect anarchists.
I don't assume Anarcho-Communism isn't a form of Communism, but I do find it more intuitive to say Communism for Marxism, and Anarchism for Anarchism, as that's what occupies most people's minds. I do respect Anarchists, actually, I don't know what you mean by saying a "lot of people say I don't respect Anarchists."
Well you said I had an issue with communism. Knowing I'm an anarchist, that's very misleading. Your intuitive language is causing you to disrespect anarcho-communism, you should change it.
I feel that this is just being disingenuous, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind. You appear to have issues with Marxism, then, or at least the Marxist conception of Communism, and that's why you made your original comment, or appears to be why.
Further still, I don't know what you mean by saying a “lot of people say I don’t respect Anarchists.” Mind elaborating?
My explanation was for Hexbear's Anarchists, for one, and for two, none of the people there seemed to imply I don't respect Anarchists. I'm aware db0 disagrees with both me and Hexbear's Anarchists, and I'm aware the non-Hexbear Anarchists tend to agree more with db0 on the Lemmy space. Further still, db0 was representing my argument, not letting me make it.
This doesn't imply that I don't respect Anarchists, and I think that's slander.
The thing to understand about Christianity is that it was originally a reaction against the Roman empire and then got co-opted and integrated into it. As a result, ever since like the 4th century Christianity has been about basically the opposite of what Jesus talked about. It turns out all that stuff about turning the other cheek stops being relevant if the emperor has his soldiers paint crosses on their shields while they're out conquering and enslaving the Gauls. Of course, you can keep all the mythological stuff, who cares, but anything relevant to politics or the material world mysteriously seemed to reverse once they entered the halls of power.
The carrot of being accepted into the empire was matched with the stick that if you didn't go along with the imperial-approved form of Christianity you'd be burned at the stake as a heretic. Any sects still clinging to anti-imperial sentiment get hunted down and exterminated just like when they were being fed to lions, but it's the Christians doing it to each other now, so you don't even have to get your own hands dirty. This approach worked way better at suppressing dissent than just trying to ban Christianity altogether.
Of course, a lot has changed over the centuries. And originally it wasn't perfect or anything either. But imo, it was when Rome Christianized that Christianity Romanized, and ever since its real values have had more to do with Rome than with Jesus. The meme's, "moneyless, classless, stateless" ideal of heaven is a relic of the original teachings that gets shunted off to the purely mythological side, where it not only doesn't matter, but also occupies a place in their brain that could have otherwise been sympathetic to making good things happen in the material world. That's already resolved, there's no need to worry about it,
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Great writeup comrade, I also wanna share this really interesting article from Roland Boer, going over this history a bit, and also outlining the historical intersections of communism and christianity.
Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?
Also, it doesn't have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.
The question of "should Christians strive for a classless society" is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the "fallen world" authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.
However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after "the base" changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.
Sure, but comparing what people thought 2000 years ago to what they think now is a fruitless endeavor.
The concept of democracy came about around that time too (at least the Greek one, which arguably wasn't the first but I digress) but should we exclude women and foreigners from it? That's what the early proponents of democracy wanted.
Yes, just because it was written in a book doesn't really means anything, we can change it, create bew editions of the book, even invert the meaning of inconvenient passages. These old code need to be made ambiguous and adaptible, endlessly reinterpretable to suit any situation that the priesthood needs to get themselves out of
Not to the early Christians it wasn't. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.
That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.
Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.
Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.
Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.
They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.
Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.
Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.
The idea that early christianity was somehow "more pure" I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.
I feel like the majority of Lemmy users are non-religious and definitely a good bit of us are antireligion, so when you make a post sorta outlining that modern Christianity is better then a more egalitarian and less dogmatic society it doesn't sit well.
Not sure if that's the case fully, and you're only at like -2/3 lol
Yep! Lemmy is primarily developed by Marxist-Leninists, and is generally structured in opposition to Capitalist networks. It allows Communists to form our own spaces without corporate censorship.
Which is why it's a big irony when people come to Lemmy to complain about communism/socialism.
Like, man, you are on a decentralized network run by volunteers who don't want to be monetized. You want to enjoy the benefits of socialism but at the same time complain about how bad it is and promote capitalism.
You're fucking incredible, Cowbee. I've watched you spend literally days patiently and politely responding to dozens of confrontational, probably bad-faith posters in thread after thread with nothing but solid information. I really admire it.
Thanks, I really do appreciate it! At the end of the day, I try to only speak on what I know, so that helps me not get frustrated if someone comes in in clearly bad-faith, haha.
Or... perhaps... talk to people and try to understand why they think the way they do. Who knows, maybe you'd hear something that makes sense. Just an idea! 😁
Yup, but Lemmy is a federated service so if that fact makes you uncomfortable or something you can always spin up a liberal instance with corporations and classism.
Communism is stateless, but not without government, or what Engels calls "The Administration of Things." For Marx, the "state" is made up of the instruments of society that uphold class distinctions, such as private property rights, and special bodies of armed people for those purposes. Public ownership and socialized ownership quite literally makes those aspects of society redundant, and thus "whithers away."
Yes, and eggs are perfect spheres in Vacuum. In real world, any and every attempt at communism will lead to a situation where government becomes an all encompassing over bearing State. that's why Socialism is a far better and much more practical model than communism ever will be.
I think you're a bit confused on terms, here, as well as history.
Socialism is just an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, rather than private. It's a transitional system towards Communism, because markets naturally cebtralize and create efficient networks for central planning all by themselves. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, former USSR, etc are all examples of Socialism.
Communism, the point at which the entire global economy can be publicly owned and planned, has not been reached. There have been Communist parties in charge of Socialist economies, but Communism itself is still in the future.
I think if you're going to be discussing the practicality of Communism and Socialism, you'd do well to familiarize yourself with the systems more. Socialism is not in opposition to Communism, and is a prerequisite for it. I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list if you want to become more knowledgeable about Socialism and Communism.
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."
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a national organization of revolutionaries fighting for socialism in the United States. Our home is in the working class.
Heaven was literally [re]invented to be a description of utopia specifically so that toiling workers wouldn't get distracted trying to create it on Earth.
"oooh heaven is a place on earth" take that shit literally, fam
Basically. Marx wrote in the 1800s, so there can be confusion from those who only keep a surface-level understanding of Marxism, say, by sticking to Wikipedia summaries. If you want, I can provide sources that help elaborate on what I'm talking about.
I don't think communism is a moneyless system. Pretty sure people paid money for things in the USSR. Have there been any communist countries without money?
Communism is a post-Socialist society, it must be global, highly developed, and have full public ownership, or close enough to those. The Soviet Union was, instead, Socialist, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect. That being said, there were attempts at Cybernetics, and moving beyond money. These are actually incredibly interesting, and anyone interested in Socialism should look into those attempts.
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."
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is a national organization of revolutionaries fighting for socialism in the United States. Our home is in the working class.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
It's great, it goes further into how post coup the nascent proto-neolib ghouls went down to examine cybersyn and essentially stole the whole idea behind it which eventually became the model for just in time supply chains at places like amazon and walmart. Oh what could have been.
I mean that stuff wouldn't emerge for the next couple decades, but you can certainly see where the capitalist vampires saw it and went "damn that looks real efficient, bet if we made a privatized version we'd make more money than god".
Of course as we know it was only so efficient because of its socialized nature which made such supply chains less prone to disruption as the computational power could be used to centrally monitor supply chains between all sorts of different nationalized industries, that could then be allocated in an agile manor so as to minimize any one industry or population running out of materials or basic needs. It was so efficient materials could even be reallocated mid route. It was a really sophisticated system and could serve as a blueprint for large scale socialized economies.
Absolutely! It's kinda surreal seeing Marx get vindicated, he predicted markets would eventually develop these kinds of technologies in order to deal with ever-increasing complexity in production.
Yes, which is why the USSR never once in its history claimed to have built communism. The best they claimed was "developed socialism" with promises to build Communism someday
By the time we reach Communism, that is, the Marxist vision of a fully publicly owned and planned world economy, distribution of wealth will likely be based on need. There is no necessity for equal wealth, as humans have very unequal needs. Equal ownership of property is certified through public ownership.
If you're asking what's preventing someone from starting a business, it would be the sheer difficulties of actually starting one that can compete with the highly developed productive forces in the rest of the economy. Communism isn't so much about outlawing private property, as developing beyond it.
To understand this you need to understand the theory. Marx outlined that socialism and communism each had to be transitioned to after reaching a given level of social/economic development. In particular there is the notion of "withering away of the state" which would happen after a global revolution, which is the aim of this classless/moniless society they outlined.
The communist manifesto is a short read!
In fact the USSR implemented explicit market policies, a sort of contained capitalism, which was designed to facilitate reaching the necessary preconditions for socialism and communism. Essentially all of the "communist" states we've seen so far have been some play on the notion of just "socialism in one country" in the Marxist-Leninist version of communist parties, who have/had the goal of eventually reaching communism.
What's probably most interesting is that the idea behind the USSR wasn't initially to have the state direct everything from the top, but in fact to facilitate worker councils (soviets) to direct their workplaces.
But you have to remember this all happened in the context of a state which had recently undergone a revolution, was rife with counterrevolutonary action (see revolutionary France and civil war Britain to see how this played out during the birth of liberalism) and was then plunged into WW2 where most states involved were acting fairly dictatorially for the duration of it. Followed shortly by the US making it an explicit goal to prevent world communism through e.g. CIA intervention because they feared "domino theory"
Marx outlined that socialism and communism each had to be transitioned to
No. Socialism is an economic mode of production. Communism is a set of social relations that are theorized to appear out of material abundance. Communism uses socialism as a mode of production. There is no transition from Socialism to Communism.
Well that description suits better anarchism. Also Heaven doesn't exist it was invented by catholic church like many other stuff they made out of nowhere. Christian God wants to make a non-human monarchy (so God and Jesus as king) and remove all human based States. So pretty much not a communist. Of course you can argue is not anarchism either and is just common monarchy, since there is still some form of authoritarianism, even if not human-based, but from my personal perspective if it truly were a perfect reign I wouldn't mind at all
if it were a truly perfect reign, I imagine it would be more about balance and harmony, not control in the traditional sense. After all, if such an entity exists, it would ideally know what’s best for everyone. But yeah, I understand how the idea of total authority, even in a utopian context, can raise concerns. It’s a pretty complex topic.
Well, something that the Mormons have is they tried out communism. They called it the law of consecration. They had some fun times with trying to handle being productive and redistribution and poligamous. They ultimately concluded that they weren't ready for it yet so they went back to default capitalism with tithing and poor/fast offerings.
Tl;dr: Mormons believe in a kind of communism in heaven, and they go hungry for 2 meals (24 hrs) to remember to give generously to the poor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_c…
Minchia e che situazioncina questa con le carte Pokémon negli ultimi mesi… Ehh signora mia, è semplicemente tornata la pokemania; cicli e ricicli storici di livello infinito… ma davvero, non mi aspettavo ci fossero di questi problemi. Forse non in Italia, e molto probabilmente non in edicola o in fumetteria, ma comunque qualcuno sta esagerando […]
Minchia e che situazioncina questa con le carte Pokémon negli ultimi mesi… Ehh signora mia, è semplicemente tornata la pokemania; cicli e ricicli storici di livello infinito… ma davvero, non mi aspettavo ci fossero di questi problemi. Forse non in Italia, e molto probabilmente non in edicola o in fumetteria, ma comunque qualcuno sta esagerando se si parla di scalping di pacchetti chiusi di carte giapponesi.
Ma proprio, boh. Io, quando ho ri-smesso con il gambling digitale con le carticelle virtuali, non è che ho provato a riconvertirmi a quello fisico, perché fortunatamente sono tirchia… ma a questo punto ci ripenserei minimo 3 volte, casomai dovesse venirmi un’idea. Questi qui (americani brutta razza…) fanno le guerre civili per prendere i pacchetti scontati di mezzo dollaro, fanno togliere intere sezioni agli ipermercati perché il casino che si genera altrimenti è troppo, e la cosa più spiacevole è che poi i bambini rimangono senza carte, perché gli adulti se le pijano tutte (qualcuno pensi ai bambini!!!)… Non si fa.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín’s order runs through April 16 and requires the Trump administration to resume funding for the Acacia Center for Justice and other nonprofit groups.
Martínez-Olguín determined that nonprofit groups have legal standing to sue the government to preserve funding. Plaintiffs are arguing that they’re entitled to funds through the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.
Martínez-Olguín’s order prevents the termination of funding for legal representation for these children, allowing the Acacia Center for Justice to continue its services while legal proceedings continue.
A federal judge rules that the Trump administration must temporarily restore funding for the Acacia Center, ensuring legal representation for vulnerable unaccompanied children.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) dubbed Wednesday "Recession Day" ahead of President Donald Trump's scheduled announcement regarding tariffs.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday largely upheld the Food and Drug Administration’s denials of two companies’ applications to sell flavored liquids for use in e-cigarettes. In a unanimous ruling, the justices threw out a ruling by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that the FDA had improperly pulled a “regulatory switcheroo” when it gave the companies instructions that they followed but then ignored those instructions and denied authorization while imposing new requirements. In a 46-page ruling by Justice Samuel Alito, the court sent the case back to the court of appeals so that it could take another look at one aspect of the dispute – specifically, whether it made a difference that the FDA had changed its position and failed to consider marketing plans that the companies had submitted as part of their applications.
An opposition TD said the social media gaffe showed that the Fine Gael leader was focused on "superficial photo-ops and online trends for likes instead of doing his job effectively"
davel
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to davel • • •davel
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •Okay. It seems to be related to my DNS sinkhole.
Oh God… it’s Thomas “” Friedman 🤢
- YouTube
www.youtube.com☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to davel • • •davel
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •Won’t somebody please think of the bourgeoisie’s profits!
NYT economists still don’t know how fiat money works.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to davel • • •Scott
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ • • •