ok, i can understand this. so it’s small-business are private run while bigger businesses are organized differently?

Very small businesses would tend to be private. At least that’s the trend. But keep in mind even a worker-owned co-op is a private business so it’s one of those things where the exact implementation has varied. And many businesses that would otherwise be private and might be partially nationalized, requiring certain standards, barriers to creating a storefront, strict rules on employment (or not). It’s something that countries can experiment with. Struggle doesn’t end after revolution and the development of productive forces changes employment.

The best targets for nationalization are the big industries, the developed ones. They are much easier to plan and run and expropriate. But a country could do so earlier if conditions allowed. Keep in mind that every country with a socialist revolution has faced constant attack, so they have been under fairly desperate conditions to industrialize or otherwise abandon more idealistic forms of work, e.g. being the primary target of Nazis.

to sum it up, i’d like to add a point. businesses spend money mostly on 4 categories:

raw materials wages for workers machinery (this one has to be largely paid up-front) profits to shareholders

In Marxist terms you can usually summarize it in two: material inputs (dead labor) and labor. Profit isn’t an input to production, it is actually variable and is just what is left over after all expenses. Income vs. expenditures. Raw materials and machinery are just commodities you buy to do production.

so to “socialize much of the gains” means that company profits are either redirected to the community (“state-run enterprise”)

It could be business taxation or it could be a redirecting of productive capacity (provide X prefab concrete widgets to this state project). Profits don’t need to be redirected, that’s just an accounting question. They may be made unprofitable by a given expropriation. But in countries taking this approach, like China, it’s mostly business taxes.

or redirected into extra wages (“co-ops”)

If the co-op runs the business and is functional then the workers are basically setting their own wages and trying to optimize their business to pay as much as possible while still doing well as a business. If this is basically private enterprise then over time the state will begin direct involvement as it grows in size, observing production, expenditures, living conditions, etc. If a state allows small enterprise run more like a capitalist business, then eventually the state may step in a force cooperative governance, ensures a state-meditated union, etc.

But really this is exactly something that countries have experimented with, it’s not just one prescription. And it has varied based on conditions, particularly external ones from imperialist countries.

Posting something on a private platform is actually not public. It is the private property of the platform owner and they can make it public or private any time they want or find ways to commodity it in their terms of service when you sign up.

I say this to back up what you say about the myth of the digital commons. Most online networks are not a commons at all, they are the exact opposite, they are an enclosure to extract profit from what would otherwise be a commons, usually built by finance capital to have appealing features at first, generated at a loss, and then once profit needs to be taken the alleged “commons” is increasingly closed and monetized. Journalista don’t really understand this, sure, but neither do most people. They expect, correctly, that social interactions should be analogous to chatting with someone on the street or at a public square, and social networks try to give that illusion.

Regarding individual choice, well a person is surrounded by the exact opposite of what we are saying and all their friends are on their addiction habit social networks so what would you expect them to do. These things don’t just happen on their own, people must work to organize and educate on the way capitalism turns their social lives into profit.

Workers owning the means of production is not an overly prescriptive idea. It means the bourgeois have been deposed or substantially oppressed such that workers actually dictate production. This is only really possible for a society after a revolution, as the bourgeois ruling class will not allow themselves to be deposed or substantially oppressed otherwise.

This is one of the more flexible and interesting ways in which socialists can experiment. Experiments have ranged pretty widely. Some subgroups tried forms of primitivist agricultural communalism, though this can only exist for any significant duration under the protection of an industrialized state. In the context of industrialized production it can look like co-ops or state-run enterprises or various forms of oppressed bourgeois or all of the above simultaneously at different levels of productive forces (start more bourgeois and get stripped of it as production becomes so developed it can be more easily run via planning). Chile wanted to experiment with cybernetics developed with Stafford Beer before being murdered by US-backed fascists, the left leadership murdered in the tens of thousands following this. Can’t stress enough the importance of that revolution part - Allende rose via liberal democratic means and capitalists asserted the true basis of their rule, which is violence and coercion.

So to answer your question, it would probably look petty bourgeois at first (individuals incorporating a business) under most near term circumstances, and does in countries run by socialists, but what to do as the enterprise grows varies. And sometimes a state may coordinate production even early on. For example important technologies may be developed by university researchers and to enter production they are state-funded and forced to collaborate with other researchers, with a petty bourgeois payoff (salary, ownership that dwindles until it enters a certain tier, etc). The latter also happens under capitalism but the profits are entirely privatized, capital feeds off the state funding, whereas the point of this industrial policy in socialist states is to either build missing productive capacity, to socialize much of the gains, and eventually turn over to co-ops and state-run enterprise, etc.

lol why are you so afraid to just address what I said. Next pointless ramble and I’m out bud

The topic being what Dengism is and why those you label with it might reject your use of the label. I explained this in the previous comment, you can choose whether to engage with it or not but I don’t feel any urge to immediately respond to your various diversions.

I’ll be happy to discuss that after the topic at hand, though it seems you’re trying to avoid it.

It’s an insult to the Filipino Maoists to compare them to the ACP.

ACP are rejected by all communists. They are Strasseritr, reactionary, and a formation deviating even from the revisionist CPUSA. They’re basically right wing grifters and Lemmy liberals are falling for the grift, lacking political education and media literacy.

A communist organizes to overthrow the bourgeois state and class and establish a new order in its place. Historically the term has referred to revolutionary socialists, particularly Marxist-Leninists, who have by far had the most success in revolution. The aftermath of revolution has never practically been immediate transformation, but to enact major changes unacceptable in reformist contexts and defend the revolution and its process.

There are no “tenets” of communism outside this context. Maybe you’re referring to Marx’s conception of communism as a classless, stateless society? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need? This was always in the context of a historical process wherein there was first a dictatorship of the proletariat and the development of productive forces to even make communism possible. It is a prediction of what people will do when the bourgeois are no more, when they can demand more from life, over a long-running process.

By use, a tankie is anyone vaguely on the left that doesn’t fall for every US state department criticism of other countries.

Historically it was a left com / Trotskyist dismissive term referring to communists that justified the intervention in Hungary, with tanks, in 1956. But liberals don’t understand history or politics, nor are curious about them, and the only real content is to imply that the target is bad and not to be believed.

The “Darwinist” example is a good one because that’s generally not the term used in biology for what Young Earth Creationists think they’re doing by using the term dismissively. Evolutionary theory is much richer than Darwinism alone and within it there are disagreements among people, some calling certain views “Darwinist” in a way that is critical, seeing adaptation everywhere in evolutionary history even when it’s unjustified. Creationists just use it as a way to act like it’s a religious dogma, a camp, and therefore on equal footing with Young Earth Creationism rhetorically, and below it to their audience (who believe in creationism already). They typically don’t even know what the term means and can’t discuss the topics involved.

Pretty similar to this thread where terms are thrown around as insults, no understanding is evident, and simply inventing associations and alleged dogmas gets a free pass from those who have never investigated the topics whatsoever.

But “Dengism” isn’t even a thing among the left, there’s very little to it, it’s just reforms in the 80s and people argue over whether they were good or bad and how much. There are no socialist parties that organize themselves around “Dengism”, that’s like having an entire party centered on No Child Left Behind or something. Oh you’re a CLBer!?

Because Dengism isn’t anything other than a dismissive left com term for anyone on the left that doesn’t wholeheartedly dismiss the reforms under Deng.

Liberals have no idea what any of these words mean they just get the “and they’re bad” vibe from context. Like children playing with toys.

Name a “tankie” you’ve interacted with that supports ACP.

It trivializes genocide to compare actual genocide to war or really just other things that are far less.

This is not a difficult concept.

You won’t be able to find a single ACP supporter here. Go read more.

This article was designed specifically to show how gullible Lemmy libs are lmao. Imagine thinking the ACP is even on the left.

To quote the great Stafford Beer, the purpose of a thing is what it does (or, more specifically phrased, we cannot say the purpose of something is what it constantly fails to do).

The ICC was created in 2002 and has exclusively worked against targets of imperialists.

The ICJ is as old as the UN and was for the same types of activities as it’s predecessors, again just bullying and jockying for power with legalese and arrests and prosecutions after winning wars. The US withdrew after they’d have been brought up for violations backing the Contras in Nicaragua, it’s only used to go after those that can be bullied and denigrated by imperialists. Sometimes they’re deserving but mostly it’s just another tool to wage war.

You would probably appreciate developing direct personal connections. Could be irl or on the internet, just not super anonymous text based stuff like Lemmy.

Humans are a product of their circumstances, they can change over time, there is diversity within a community. Overly broad brushing can lead to a despair like you’re describing and it’s good to remember it’s not accurate. At the same time it is good to be aware of tendencies and patterns because the risks you mention are real in various pockets and subsets of society. The best protection against them is relationships with everyone else, and particularly those who are opposed to and organize against, for example, fascists.

If it hadn’t cut off at 1980 the article would’ve needed to describe the cooptation of Kurdish nationalist groups into acting as imperialist proxies to weaken Palestinian diaspora strongholds. The fall of Syria involves the Kurdish nationalist groups seizing and holding oil for the Americans. The consequences of the government falling and being replaced by nouveau Daesh is ethnic cleansing, expulsion and killing of Palestinian diaspora, particularly those most involved in organizing resistance, and the inevitable betrayal against Kurdish nationalists, leaving them to be bombed by Turkey and then attempted to be used yet again against Iran (bombed by Iran too now).

As a rule, be skeptical of ethnonationalism. It is not, in fact, particularly “libertarian” or “anti-authoritarian”, it ends up being opportunist and worse.

Debian is better as a server host. Ubuntu is not easier for a server for anything except initial installation but you’ve already done that once with Debian so you’ll be fine. Only reason to use Ubuntu is if you want core software updates every 6 months and for this purpose you don’t. And can still have the option for newer software in select cases using containers.