novibe

@novibe@lemmy.ml

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

novibe,

Just a small correction: most people look at relationships in terms of some very rigid ideals that were set a couple centuries ago at most.

novibe,

That does make intuitive sense, but archeology shows otherwise. There was a much bigger diversity of gender roles and relationship structures/child rearing systems, including in agricultural societies.

The modern almost universal ideal of romantic monogamous nuclear relationships was born from romantic (as in the movement) puritan petit bourgeois ideals in the 19th century.

Working class women during the medieval age for example, worked and lived outside the home, had affairs etc. This changed around the 18th century with the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and working class mirroring of their ideals.

Basically while it’s true that patriarchal strictly dichotomous societies existed for as long as we can tell, And that they have prevailed and “won out”. But doesn’t mean they are the norm for humanity. Their universality is extremely recent.

novibe,

Just play as Sweden to get the hang of things 🤷‍♂️

novibe,

But people LOOK like they can kill. They are no fuzzy and cuddly…

novibe,

Hummmm… I can think of a couple more historical events that follow a similar pattern…

novibe,

It looks like it has a more snake-like body, or more like a Chinese dragon.

novibe,

Luddites were not anti-technology. They saw the progress of technology IN a primitive capitalist system and understood that technology would never benefit them, and always be used to subjugate them more.

If technology only benefits 0.1% of the world, and leads to the world dying, does it benefit humanity at all?

novibe,

wat

Like out of all arguments against a socialist state, saying it’s like cancer which is like capitalism is… dumb? Like how? Which socialist state metastasised and “grew” without natural limits? What even is this argument?

novibe,

You may disagree with the idea of the necessity of a socialist state, but saying it’s “not a thing” is just ignorant.

What even is socialism to you?

novibe,

But capital that stops dies, and if you are outcompeted you stop. So you always have to do better than everyone else. And capital has to accumulate exponentially to keep growing, and not stop and die.

The mechanics of the system make sustainable growth impossible. Tweaking the surface of the system will never change that core.

novibe, (edited )

I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.

Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.

We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.

But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself? How does it function without regulations? You imply a state with your definition and don’t even realise it.

novibe,

I do understand all that. But explain this, how are all these commodity producing worker owned business regulated? How do they operate on a market? Who sets and controls this market? Who ensures collective property of the means of production?

Socialism as an economic model with the workers owning the means of production kinda still has commodity production, money etc. otherwise the whole concept of a collectively owned business makes no sense.

Unless you advocate for the complete atomization of groups into self-sufficient cells that have no organisation between them, to me you are still describing a state.

Also, can’t workers be in direct control of their means of production in a socialist state? What mechanically or physically impedes that? Like coops were a major part of the soviet model, right?

How long do you envision the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism to take then?

(Also also, Marx did talk a lot about “lower stage” communism or socialism later in life. Also about how a revolution could move towards a completely free worker’s state instead of going through an authoritarian phase - he had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).

novibe,

Cmon man… Sure it had issues, but acting like Cities Skylines didn’t completely revolutionise city builders is insane.

novibe,

Not them, but Red Headed Stranger is probably one of my favourite concept albums ever.

novibe,

You don’t know what you are talking about lmao

The Why Files is one of the best YouTube channels out there. They talk about fringe and conspiracy subjects but debunk them. You didn’t even watch the video and you are just making a BUNCH of assumptions that have nothing to do with it.

novibe,

It’s not. It’s about the real implications it might have, such as for eugenics and genetically enhanced soldiers. But it also does talk a lot about the real good it does and can do. But the main points are about those two topics. That like with every technology, the issue is the social and political structures around their use. And also how eugenics never really went away. In many ways it’s using CRISPR to start a conversation about eugenics tbh.

Why does a state like California that has supermajorities in both houses of the legislature not have a livable wage, housing guarantees, universal healthcare, and other very progressive policies?

I keep being told it’s because of the Republicans that we can’t have nice things. So what gives in California? We should be overflowing with progressive policies.

novibe, (edited )

Your conclusion makes no sense. California can’t afford the policies because states don’t print their money, the federal government does. And California doesn’t get much help from the federal government. So it’s constrained by what it can tax locally.

Those policies would work perfectly and cause no budgetary issues if the federal government paid for them by printing money.

The massive printing of money from 2008 to COVID really not make people realise that? We CAN pay for everything. The government just has to print for the money, and use it for that instead of bailing out the capitalists over and over.

novibe,

Zimbabwe is not sovereign monetarily. The US is the most monetarily sovereign country in the world. They can literally print trillions and it doesn’t do anything to inflation. It has happened multiple times already!! Like why would people deny reality?

novibe,

It’s crazy to think there were still statues of this dude up around Belgium up until fucking BLM

novibe,

I would honestly be shocked if there were no Homo Erectus cities and large scale societies. They existed for far longer than us, and were almost if not just as smart as us.

novibe,

Ah yes, the legendary capitalist freedom to go homeless and die of preventable diseases. And the awful authoritarian communism of providing full employment and eliminating poverty.

If you don’t think the USA is the most authoritarian country ever, your definition of authoritarianism is useless.

novibe,

Lenin is great, and Stalin literally saved the world. The USSR was a great success. It was as authoritarian as any western “democracy”. Prove me wrong bozo.

novibe,

Damn revolution bad? I guess we should just lie down and accept how things are then. Better the death of millions of people, billions very soon, from the system that exists; than thousands from a revolution. You are very wise.

Can somebody explain why game makers don't start their own companies together?

It seems like every other week a game studio is massively laying off employees; sometimes after years of development. What I’m reading is that it’s a quick way to lower expenses and pad the investors’ pockets, flooding the market with developers and reducing their value, to then hire them back a few months later at lower...

novibe,

For my city, just for a very specific example, it takes less than one afternoon and 80 bucks total (no fees and almost no capital fund requirements) to open a corporation. It takes weeks if not months to open a coop and it costs 2500 bucks PER member.

I don’t know the specifics of all cities and states everywhere in the world. But the system is built to benefit private corporations much more, as it’s a capitalist system where owning capital equals power, and workers are a commodity.

novibe,

Sorry I would rather not :/

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • khanakhh
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • rosin
  • ngwrru68w68
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • ethstaker
  • slotface
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • Leos
  • tester
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines