Depends on the country, honestly. In America, I’m more inclined to believe Syndicalism would work, reform won’t meaningfully happen from within.

In general, I’m anti-tendency and believe that the material conditions of each space need to be analyzed independently.

Full agreement, way ahead of you. Instead of having a robust, publicly funded infrastructure-based necessity (internet service), it gets chopped up and sold piece-by-piece with price-gouging and local monopolies like warlords.

Co-ops are cool, but markets in general have far too many disadvantages for me to advocate for market-based Socialism over a non-market solution.

Markets are extremely bad when it comes to proper allocation of essentials. Infrastructure in general should be nationalized at minimum, and heavily invested in.

Nationalize internet.

Not just mods, but the entire Capitalistic model.

Leftists go to Lemmy because Lemmy is FOSS, ie leftist, and was made by a Communist. Reddit mostly has liberals.

Leftists generally call themselves leftists. Progressives are usually Social Democrats, ie Scandinavian Capitalism.

Hyperloop should be halted and replaced with high speed rail, and starlink should be nationalized. Musk keeps rinsing and repeating his grand privatized infrastructure projects where he essentially embezzles public funds.

That’s the biggest thing for me. If I can get a similar phone to work in the US with no stability or functional compromises, I’m happy.

When has Clarence Thomas ever done the right thing? When do people think he will ever act properly under pressure?

They haven’t had masks for decades, and it’s becoming more blatant. Reagan was the beginning of it all, honestly.

It’s one thing to claim police brutality isn’t that big of an issue. Still wrong, but not uncommon.

It’s another thing entirely to somehow be pro-police brutality.

What the fuck?

Republicans are a minority, but the right is the overwhelming majority. America has no mainstream left, its firmly center-right with a center-right party and a fascist party.

It can only happen at a global scale. There are numerous answers to your question, but again, it isn’t as simple as removing all incentives. Read theory, Marx never pretends to know what Communism must look like, which is why Communists focus on achieving Socialism first, as we can very well transition to that now.

Nope, just like it doesn’t require unlimited resources and automation to get you to do your chores. However, at a societal scale, its definitely a futuristic goal, which is why Communism is only achievable after Socialism, which is similar to modern society except industry is collectively, rather than individually owned.

People don’t get everything for free until productivity is so high that it’s practical, which comes from development. The distribution is handled by the Socialist State, typically, until it becomes vestigial and no longer necessary.

Neither. It’s a replacement for money, based on hours worked. The difference between money and LVs are that LVs are destroyed upon first use, ie you create 4 hours of Value, then trade that for 4 different hours of Value.

Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.

Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.

They are.

To argue for Capitalism over Socialism, you must reject the idea of democratizing control of productuon in favor of dictatorial control. You can whitewash it into “meritocracy,” and pretend that ownership is a mystical concept that chooses those with the highest competency, but ultimately Capitalism is a rejection of Worker Control, and thus an affirmation of control in the hands of the few.

Similarly, to believe that this dictatorial control is worth it, you typically must also believe that growth is either non-existant if the Workers direct it, or pales in comparison to when Capitalists control production.

Therefore, you are rejecting the concepts of decentralization and democratization of production in favor of the “good men” theory, putting all your chips on Capitalists either being good people or being replaced by better Capitalists without input from the Workers.

Did I deliberately highlight the flaws of your thinking without putting the kid gloves on? Yes, and I won’t apologize for it, as the claims are logically a necessity to hold your beliefs.