Michael

You can think it’s funny all you like. Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but you misunderstood my grammar. I was detailing two distinct types of people, with different views. The latter (after the or) are more on the side of purity testing other Communists because they see what would unfold after many, many years of Communism as de-facto Communism and proof that others are not true Communists (hence the slash ideological purists part).

I currently choose to engage with emergent (and divergent) thought, not snapshots and echoes of the past - but I’m not trying to devalue it - I’m just very interested in modern Marxist-Leninist discourse and thought. I have previously engaged with the theory and understand the history that surrounded it and level of technology that we had in the 1900s.

What if the answer to all of our worldwide problems is finding a balance between decentralized and centralized structures, balancing technology and the environment, finding a balance between currency and a moneyless society, and achieving balance between authority and liberty (with the goal of individual and societal sovereignty), and so forth?

In this thread, I see Anarcho-Communists (or final stage Communists/ideological purists) taking bat at Marxist-Leninists (who espouse mostly outdated theory, but not always) and Liberals who fail to understand really any ideology that differs from their own because of how thick the propaganda is (and who espouse ideals like Democratic Socialism while failing to realize that their social support is still enabled by modern slavery - such as the exploitation of third world countries).

I think a direct democracy, with authoritative and libertarian elements (such as enforcing liberty/a universal bill of rights for individuals) would be ideal.

It could have an economic system with built-in social supports (each according to their need) that emulates cash and all the best parts of blockchain (that isn’t hoardable or worth hoarding, that also doesn’t enable slavery/other forms of parasitism, and is generally private at the transactional stage - yet is auditable at a larger-scale), with centralized control of natural resources that still respects decentralized development and balance with the environment. And also does not have debt or parasitism of any form, instead encouraging diplomacy - such as contracts/agreements taking the place of debt to better the planet and encourage societal responsibility and stewardship (e.g. contracts that result in the stabilization of the society incurring the would-be debt).

Instead of total anarchy or various forms of authoritative control/dictatorship, we could simply combine direct democracy and hierarchy by electing leaders based solely on merit in the areas that are most needed, with strong controls so we get the best out of leadership and hierarchy and the resultant clarity and direction, without letting leaders and other experts become drunk on power. While also preventing the corruption of the individuals in power and the various forms of stagnation that result from entrenched power not conceding to new developments or advances.

I know I’m an idealist, but I’d like everybody to turn the chapter and realize that we are in 2025, not the 1900s. Technology and science have advanced every area of our society. We are so beyond scarcity that we are producing well beyond our needs with conditions and methods that are not even close to ideal (with ideal and emergent solutions and methods ready to take the place of those unsustainable methods).

We also have a global communication network - we can understand foreign languages without any human intervention in some cases, we can bridge cultural gaps, we can seek understanding and truth with our fingertips, and also we can push past the propaganda we are served on a platter, etc.

We can achieve something better than anything that has ever been conceived of previously, and it starts by crumpling up all of the things that no longer serve us. Concepts like racism, nationalism, really all of the isms that promote superiority over others. Bridging gaps, joining hands, while also countering disinformation (not misunderstanding) and bad faith.

We truly are not facing the same limitations that we did in the 1900s, although we may be facing new challenges like the rise of AI and the misuse of it by those currently in power.

There really is no more room in society for mucking about and fighting others while everything is in such disrepair, with so much needless suffering happening.

💯

The world could indeed learn a whole lot from China’s efficiency, how they do business, and specifically from their advances in manufacturing.

I see their point, but I disapprove of contributing to the destruction of the environment (from lengthy transport or industry potentially not using best emergent practices) because it’s “cheaper” and that’s what I was trying to touch on.

I’m no fan of Trump or his policies, but I don’t think it’s a necessarily a bad thing that he’s encouraging American industry to develop (even if his reasons for doing so are vastly different from my own) - but as they pointed out - his policies are hilariously not to much effect, if any.

If products produced in China and sold here in the US are “bad”, it’s solely the fault of the American capitalists who don’t have a care in the world besides selling the lowest common denominator in mass quantities, with no quality control on their side, consumer support, or care for how it’s made or transported. And of course those who blindly consume are responsible as well.

If products are made in China and consumed in the states, there is usually no way to have things repaired or serviced as a consumer. We also have no idea what chemicals are being used and are exposing ourselves to and we can’t directly control or quantify emissions from Chinese factories besides voting with our wallets. A lot of waste is produced because nothing is built to last - not because it was made in China, but because it was all orchestrated by uncaring capitalists.

If the global supply chain was localized to geographic regions, we can greatly reduce emissions from transport. With regulation and our technological advances, we can also build new industry that is significantly less harmful to the environment and the people that work and live around it. I’m not claiming that China isn’t implementing new policies or practices or trying to make light of their efforts to reduce their emissions.

Their company is not just a software development company - they are presumably designing hardware, having it produced, and selling said hardware.

If you can’t answer basic questions about the product you want produced, as a company selling hardware, then clearly you need to hire somebody who can answer those basic questions and deal with the manufacturing side of the business.

There are just very few companies left still working in manufacturing in the US, and of course they are selective about the clients they take and the projects they work on. If you can’t form healthy business relationships and learn to do business without calling people that you deal with babies for having questions or requirements, then perhaps it’s possible that you strongly consider contracting with another company to manufacture the hardware for your software.

It’s highly inefficient and harmful to the environment to ship steel across the world. We need to stop unsustainable practices, produce products locally, and develop economies of scale that make sense instead of simply “offsetting” emissions or relying on carbon capture that is not directly integrated into our industry.

That all being said, the world could learn a whole lot from Chinese manufacturing processes.

I deleted part of my post and fucked up what I was trying to say.

Rust seems to be imperative for security. I hope people in the Linux kernel community put aside their differences and find common ground for the benefit of everyone.

From my perspective as an outsider, there is a lot of apparent hostility and seemingly bad faith engagements going on in this space. Hopefully the reasons are innocuous like them just not wanting to learn a new language, to avoid increasing their workload, or to simply avoid working with the Rust team for whatever reasons they might have.

I would argue that anybody standing in the way of progress and increased security should be moved out of the way. No need for shaming or deep dives, just move the ship forward.

I don’t think there is any need to reserve or control your feelings - love freely however you’d like to be loved to everyone you encounter. If somebody doesn’t hold love or respect for you in some form, I’d say that they probably aren’t suited to being in a relationship with you, platonic or otherwise.

See loving somebody as not possessing/owning them or controlling them. If you are the best fit with somebody, you’ll both know it and it’ll click at some point. You’ll both come to the understanding that you’d rather not be with anybody else on the journey you both share and mutually chose to be on.

Loosen up and be patient, honest, and direct. Give space to your potential love interests. If you think it would help, I’d also suggest seeing people you are very passionate about as friends you have feelings for, instead of love interests - just don’t overextend yourself or give what you don’t have to give.

Trust yourself, and trust that when everything feels right, you’ll both open up at the best moment and define a proper relationship and healthy boundaries. If you truly have built trust and rapport with somebody, whatever you create with them will be a beautiful and fulfilling thing and there will be no room for jealousy or doubt because it’s simply not necessary.

Awesome, thanks for adding the settings!

Yes, surely with programs like PRISM and the NSA, and corporations collecting information about literally every aspect of our lives with every device we purchase…they are just trying to sell us ads.

Our ruling power structure is paranoid, our government is rogue and largely does not serve US citizens (only the ruling elite), they maintain control by invoking fear, division, outrage, and stress in the population and they count on our learned helplessness and slave mentality. They want us to be depressed, they want us to be chronically ill and tired, they want us to be poor and struggling, and most importantly they want us to think we’re the “good guys” fighting the “bad guys”.

I’d prefer to see people screenshot/crop and also link to an archived version or a frontend. These services (X, Instagram, Meta, etc.) often require you to login for a lot of things (including seeing posts) and also block VPNs.

It definitely is harmful to Lemmy’s userbase to click on these links, but I also don’t think we should create a walled garden. Users can always choose to use solutions like LibRedirect.

Not going to get into a huge debate, but I disagree that it’s a good thing or even remotely ideal. I don’t there should be such huge separations in society to the point where you can point somebody out as “rich” and “poor” - especially pegging an entire neighborhood as poor or mostly poor.

We can do better to provide quality housing and the ingredients of dignity to everyone.

We need to redefine society if we want to truly unify, and it starts with an universal human bill of rights. Ensuring individual and community-based sovereignty with guiding concepts like direct democracy are important first steps. Dependence on externalities and reliance on impersonal entities like corporations (which largely capture governance, science, and everything else they can) needs to stop if we want to realize a world that is worth living in for ourselves and future generations.

Society is our doom if we continue to allow pollution, waste, and destruction of our environments on levels we have never seen before, while experts and other people in the know stand silently and cover the situation up, or are largely ignored if they are actually crying out. Environmentally-caused disease and chronic illness are rising to levels that we can no longer ignore or cover up.

Modern sewer systems are safe

They produce biosolids which are probably very contaminated and are presently jammed into landfills if they are not (from my understanding) unsafely repurposed. I’d like to see people openly entertain the various uses we could have for our waste. Our systems aren’t good enough quite yet to close the book on.

connect with high speed rail isn’t feasible

From my perspective, high speed rail is very feasible for freight and transportation. Does it make sense to connect to every remote and mostly uninhabited region? Probably not.

We need to work on our communities

Hard yes. I just feel that it’s very difficult to connect when you are so vastly disconnected in current cities.

and make cities safe for people to live in

We’ll have to get very serious to tackle our pollution and polluting practices to do so. I think a large number of cities will have to naturally relocate/rebuild as the situation shifts in the coming decades and that is what I was attempting to touch on.

get rid of cars etc. spreading out isn’t the answer

I’m not explicitly arguing against centralization or arguing for dispersion into rural areas, and I do agree with you largely. I think accessible high speed rail is one way that we can get rid of cars and other vehicles.

I was attempting to communicate that I would sooner argue for eating insects over lab-grown protein mainly because of the danger I see in the concept of a food source that is only able to be produced in a lab, not that I am going to seriously argue for insects to be seen as anything other than a potential option for protein. Plenty of other cultures utilize insects in food willingly, and I’m all about arguing for consent and what’s best for everybody individually.

I think we will have to get very creative to solve our problems with agriculture and food production, and I think all options should be fairly entertained if they can be done in a way that is truly safe while prioritizing the will of the people. I’m of the opinion that our food sources should be more natural and that’s also what I was attempting to touch on.

I’m talking about centralization. Expecting countless individuals to be able to do something as well as specialists can do it just doesn’t make sense to me.

As far as I know, there is no existing and modern example of centralization that I am aware of that isn’t some form of state authoritarianism with capitalist or other class/status-based elements. So in my mind, the concepts are at least loosely interlinked, unless we are framing this in the context of the world already being at least slightly utopian or having overt socialist elements. Which I’m happy to entertain, or just purely entertain the concept of centralization in a vacuum.

I overall agree that centralization could be made very efficient, but in its current form, people are limited/controlled in a number of ways (such as lacking ownership of their property), and those that control centralization efforts are not designing cities or economies of scale that are even remotely healthy and in the best interest of humanity or the planet.

If we have no meaningful way of getting rid of or utilize biosolids besides landfills and other, more harmful practices, it doesn’t seem like the most amazing thing to do in the tried and true way moving forward.

“Personal responsibility” is a red herring

If I have to give my power away to external entities to meet my needs and tackle all of my problems, and they persistently show a pattern of wanton disregard for my health and safety and of those around me, I’m going to find ways of taking matters into my own hands and show others how easy and inexpensive it is - that you don’t need to be an expert to tackle certain realities of life that are vastly over-complicated by those in power.

Off-gridders are primarily dilettantes who have the money to pretend they’re disconnected from the system.

Of course nobody is truly disconnected, on the contrary, we are all connected. It is, however, disingenuous to imply that you need vast sums of money to accomplish such a lifestyle. The system is also, in my view, not solely responsible for all existing innovation and culture that off-gridders/etc. benefit from.

The modern world is moving along at a very slow pace, and it’s doing so kicking and screaming at every small step of progress because of concepts like “expense” and the diminishing/false quantification of value of people to excuse inaction or the blatant disregard of the health and safety of those that reside in it.

I’m of the view that unless a city/centralized location is able to support its basic needs in the geographic region its occupying (and moving forward), it’s probably in the wrong spot. Am I against centralization or proponents of it? Of course not, but there has to be a valid reason for specific projects and solid grounding for it besides what is best or convenient for capitalists.

From my perspective, there also needs to be guiding principles, a universal bill of human rights that is never eroded, and a commitment to ending/creatively solving polluting practices and actively remediating said pollution.

TIL, and of course I echo the sentiment of the other commenter that those words don’t truly exist here in the US, and I agree with you that the world is a much larger place than the US. I just would hope that European countries (or whatever other countries are concerned about the health of their people) lead the charge if such a solution to our protein came to be.

Just trying to ground things into our current reality. But yeah, I think in a world where there is an incentive to do good, it’s a no-brainer that we could do stuff like this in a lab and in a much more efficient way than agriculture or raising livestock/etc. for protein sources.

I would sooner argue for eating insects vs. lab-grown protein made by a corporation. I have no trust for corporations to produce safe and emergent solutions to the problems we face as a species and world. They have no incentive to do the right thing and put the brakes on when things are looking bad.

Cities are more efficient than rural communities.

They can be in some respects, sure. They are also vastly more unhealthy to reside in, will likely fail to meet energy needs and water needs in the face of a shift in climate and in precipitation, and are suffering from vast amounts of pollution in every direction.

Concentration of people is better than spreading everyone out.

I disagree with your opinion, but in a more healthy world I would probably agree with you.

You’d see much more environmental destruction if everyone moved rural.

With today’s world and consumerism, you are probably correct.

Plus it’s much harder to get resources to rural communities.

This country is ripe for high-speed rail infrastructure for freight. I think local communities should be less dependent on the global/national economy to meet their needs. If we can put Walmarts everywhere and stock them to the brim with junk from China (etc.) we can provide people the basic necessities.

Modifications should be made but everyone pooping in the woods in a bucket isn’t a good idea either.

I don’t think we need to poop in buckets and I wasn’t suggesting it. Overall, we need completely new systems that are known to be safe and effective, regulatory bodies that are functioning and on the side of the people (or humanity as a whole), and a mass banning of chemicals like Europe.

I apologize for the quick and perceivably chide responses, I think we both want a better world and we likely agree on a lot of things. I see your good intentions. Thank you for sharing your perspective and I really do appreciate your responses and time - I just don’t personally see the path forward in ultra-capitalist hellscapes like cities. There is too much complexity, mindless dependence on the existing systems, and too much overarching parasitism standing in the way in those areas for meaningful progress unless there are vast shifts occurring which I do not have the foresight or eyes to see.