The Lemmy just censor your comment about needing more shootings like the one Luigi Mangione is accused of.

No, the onus of evidence is on you to show me this “early definition of Capitalism” that predates Marx. Although it seems if you’re claiming such, you simply didn’t read my comment.

If it was an accident, the accident repeated several times. Even engineers got murdered for correctly saying you shouldn’t overload trains (1).

Wow, you mean Authoritarian Communism is still Authoritarian? Yeah no shit (and as you can read from earlier I’ve already mentioned many such things happening under conditions of Capitalism, directly from the doctrines practices of cost cutting and wage theft or brutalization, but fine, “I’ll see your engineers there and raise you the British Bopal disaster” that killed and deformed generations of Indians in their home village and is still causing health effects today).

As you’ve dropped in I’m going to assume you saw me mention that Stalinism was not Communism in its ideal form, but was a Stalinist form.

Your point is thus not about Communism, but about Communism under Authoritarian leaders… And I have already shown that Capitalism is capable of mass killings and atrocities under all sorts of conditions as part of the philosophy (ingrained to it). Where as Stalin’s actions here aren’t specifically connected to Communist doctrine. I’ve already covered this point several times with the previous respondant.

That there is a written philosophy - that of Marxism, that of the Communes and the Commons, is why I can say these things. It has a primary set of writings. But we can say that about Capitalism too…

That’s because real capitalism hasn’t been tried yet. All the capitalist systems still had subsidies, governments beyond enforcing property law, …

…because Marx was ALSO the person who first defined and wrote about CapitalISM, in his work DAS KAPITAL 1867.

You can look and find commentaries about other concepts in different languages and different sounding words that aren’t Capitalism, such as Merchantilism, or in The Hollantse, or you can find the word Capital here and there and claim it relates, or instance around the time of Marx’s first treatise on the subject, but none are systematic, focused on the right topic using the ism repeatedly and providing a widely agreed in definition of it.

Like all concepts it has these forerunners that are related but NOT it. So you have tried to be clever here without realizing that when we discuss Capitalism in the way I have - we are talking about Marx’s original definition of it. Which was the phenomena of using an unearned accumulation of KAPITAL in order to purchase, own, and exploit workers for the purposes of profiting from exploiting their now alienated Labor.

No, because that was not real capitalism.

Oh yes, as you can read above, it very much is. It is in its original description as found in the criticism by Karl Marx in Das Kapital, in 1867. A description so accurate that it’s widely agreed with - even among the Capitalists. He was the first and primary text on what the doctrine of “real Capitalism” is. Capitalists hitherto didn’t want what they were doing to be known so openly, and intimately and for good reason. Just as any abuser doesn’t want what they’re doing to be described. It comes naturally to them, and that is no excuse for it, doesn’t make it more moral or acceptable. Only once it’s pointed out accurately described does the argument start, only then can the behaviours meet reforms. Which is why in Marx’s writings we also find advocacy for labor rights.

Sorry my friend, but what I’ve spoken about is indeed, Real Capitalism™ - down to the origin of the term.

P.S there’s also Proudhon: the capitalist’s employee was “subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience” - so not much better. People of the era were writing things as they saw them emerge. It’s still the problem of the abuser as described above.

I love how this is painted as hacking when the root cause is an unrestricted number of telco subsideries that pay for access to the system, this then essentially gives them the powers and credentials to monitor, intercept, and clone anyone’s phone and send/receive their messages/calls (Linus Tech Tips teamed up with Derek from Veritasium to show the extent to which it can be done, stealing his identity to intercept texts to and from his wife).

This is a product of the market deregulations of Capitalism. Capitalism is once again a security risk to citizens of free democracies. Shit happens all the time.

No, you’re measuring perceived deficits of “Communism” based on what you think about Stalinism (which is not the same thing). Technically Communism or “Scientific Socialism” would have used science to test various techniques of growing crops than selected the best (roughly what happened in Vietnamese Communism).

But Stalinism is called Stalinism because it’s not exactly faithful to Communism as a philosophy.

But yes there are plenty example of profit driven systems of Capitalism creating starvation famines ect. Whether it be the East India Company, or the leveraged loans of the World Banks in Africa, or the effects of Climate change, when combined they have a far greater death toll than Communism.

…and you had/have genocides and gulag style systems of punishment in Capitalism as well, whether it’s the workhouses of Ireland in the past century (with their mass graves of Children), Prison Labour in the US, or the blood mining and rare minerals in Africa… Hell Capitalism has set machine guns on workers before in South Africa. Even America has things like the Battle of Blair Mountain and the Ludowlow worker massacre in its history (where mine security had a license to r*pe the wives of workers).

You’re just not taught about these things. I can provide you references for any fact I give you here. Just ask.

So whilst you think I’m ignoring the ills of Communism (or it’s Stalinist incarnation), which I’m not. I think you’re being totally blind of the fact Capitalism has a far greater death toll, and other detriments to the world you’re purposefully overlooking, or just ignorant of.

PFAs, Bisphenol A, micro plastics in fetuses, thalidomide, the military industrial complex, the wars of the banana Republics (placing them under corporate tyranny), Pinochet, the list is infinite because it’s ongoing.

… and here there I’ll make this point: Atleast Communism refines its practice and goals, it has progressively become less brutal as it refined its understanding of agriculture and to be VERY CLEAR that’s where the greatest number of deaths associated it come from, not as an intended or desire outcome but by accident.

The same cannot be said for the stagnation and purposeful creation of sufferings under Capitalism, from the minor wage slaveries and wage theft, to union busting (CokeCola even going as far as to kill union organizers in Latin America), to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire (where as with many factory fires, workers were locked in so their pockets could be checked for stolen sewing equipment), to more major things like mining strikes, or the awareness Exxon had around climate change in the 1960s, or Phillip Morris had about causing addiction, cancer, and fatalities.

Sorry, but in reality Capitalism has caused more suffering, in a more substantial and intentional way, that’s more connected to the Capitalist doctrine of profit making and wage minimization, than Communism ever has.

Even today America essentially has had its democracy usurped by Capitalist Oligarchs (Musk, Thiel, Andresseen).

You’d have to be absolutely blind to ignore all this history, all this connectedness to the doctrine, the purposes of profit and hence exploitation, and all that continues to this very day.

Without a doubt Capitalism is responsible for everything I’ve spoken about here, and it has within it no means, or even the suggestion of being a reformist system. Communism does and has made meaningful reforms and strides in the short periods it exists in. Which is why places like China, and Vietnam have made the strides they have, and why Americans visit Cuba for healthcare.

What I’ve said here, you cannot deny. Like I say, I can provide sources for all of it.

P.S Just to clarify China and Vietnam have Socialist Oriented Market Economies, Vietnam is probably the closest to a Marxist Socialism as its internal tension are mediated through giant Social Union movements that go far beyond just representing workers, there is a national union just for women, one for disabled people, one for students ect. They all have a voice/power capable of directing how the party forms policies and directs resources.

So you’re saying with enough checks and balances that distribute power widely enough through legal offices and separations of power, some sort of democratic socialism would in theory be possible (assuming a peaceful transition via pre-deternend legislative changes were in place and ready to be followed)?

It’s really not. It’s mostly nepotism and reproducing the an untouchable ruling class that creates an autocracy. Put simply; when one system goes too far into autocracy, you should entertain the values of another system.

Condemning that is approving of the current autocrats. But perhaps you’re a particular fan of Trump/Musk.

True, but when one system becomes sufficiently crushing, it’s best to popularize an alternative so the guy in the boot has to focus on other things for a moment.

If the boot changes colour and doctrine, and becomes crushing again, I’ll happily advocate for a free market system to distract him again…

Or perhaps some third system such as a mix of communitarianism, distributism, and Georgism. I’m not going to be particularly ideological in this.

…and the Truth is we’re speeding towards a techno-feudalism (it’s no longer Capitalism when places like Amazon dictate prices and promotions to both producers/sellers and consumers/buyers, that’s not Capitalism anymore), so unless you like licking that particular boot, your noted point may not actually serve anything than a heavier foot.

No where in Communism does it say to fake one’s scientific results in order to simulate higher crop yields. That’s not part of the doctrine. That’s why it became known as Lysenkoism, because it came down to one con man.

Had the same man been born into the position under a different system, a similar result could emerge. If he were a UN director for farming undee Capitalism a similar result could occur.

Was it an inevitable byproduct of Communist doctrine that would have occurred no matter who Stalin picked? No. Did it happen in Vietnam and Cuba because of the doctrines there? No. So whilst Stalin chose him because he was told he was a good working class lad, doesn’t make Lysenko’s deceptions part of communism. They’re not written into it anywhere.

OP how much of today’s markets and politics are definited by Oligarchs and the rich? Can you really say that a plutocracy isn’t it’s own kind of dictatorship?

Even more so, many westerners have been fooled by culture to think this is natural, inevitable, and good.

In terms of per capita rates, the Irish Catholic Church was incarcerating more of Irelands population than Stalin did to Russia during his reign.

Just two companies; The British East India company and the Belgian Rubber plantations of the Congo killed more people than Stalin or Mao (especially if you factor out the deaths from Lysenkoism, which wasn’t a part of communism).

So early Capitalism and Colonialism killed far more than Communist dictatorships have…

And finally there is this to say - Communism is an economic system designed to interrupt plutocratic rule. It’s not a governmental system of elections and checls and balances…

…and if we are to be the most up to date with this: China and Vietnam have Socialist Oriented Market Economies. The one in Vietnam, has almost eliminated homelessness entirely. Is that a dictatorship compared to the woes of the west’s housing crisises?

Early systems from both economic models - Capitalism/Colonialism and Communism - both had events of mass killings. Both have seen dictatorships… You only focus on these things in the Communist model, because of your background. Likewise, someone from China or North Korea might hear more about the famines, deaths and genocides of the Capitalist and Colonial corporations I’ve mentioned above.

P.S. Are Cancer deaths from chemicals Capitalists kept on the “safe” list indicative of a dictatorship by the wealthy? What about the deaths and famines from weather disturbances in the climate? If we’re counting the famines under Communism, then why not these things to? It’s because of a hidden Western ideology/indoctrination culture.

FBI tip line immediately, just because he’s a NAZI.

What loved ones? I don’t love anyone.

We live in a techno feudalism, it’s not a democracy, it’s no longer Capitalism. It’s Capitalism almost completely mediated through elite technocrats. The only freedom we have, the only potential for regaining control, is boycotting via massive, well organized, well understood, well conducted unsubscription programs, and campaigns. Lightening fast protest statements where we control who we fund, which services we use, and which we deny and defund by taking our usage data away (and their services away from us which takes discipline). Denying them data to sell, and profits/subscriptions.

This is the future politics we have to start discussing with others, the idea we have to spread, as it’s currently the only way to have a say within this current state of techno feudalism.

If we don’t we will end up in subscription model nations, living as slaves, with end user agreements, rather than human rights.

Nuclear plants being reopened for the sake of AI?!!

Do you have ANY evidence this is happening?

It is a closed loop, but the paper treats it as if it’s an open loop, and counts all water use for the building, as well as all the water that went into creating any equipment used… and the water that escapes power plants in powering the buildings… it also includes any other buildings that might house related services. Here is the original “study” which is about what maths could be done given the above assumptions:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271

In short, it has nothing to do with reality, and is more just an attempt at the authors to get their names out there (on bad science that the media is interested in publicizing for click bait reasons).

The study that suggests 10-50 interactions with ChatGPT evaporates a whole bottle of water, doesn’t account for the fact that cooling systems are enclosed…

…and that “study” is based on a bunch of assumptions, which include evaporation from local power plants, as well as the entire buildings GPT’s servers are located in. It does this as if one user is served at a time, and the organizations involved (such as microsoft) do nothing BUT serve one use at a time. So the “study” (which isn’t peer reviewed and never got published) pretends those buildings don’t also serve bing, or windows, or all the other functions microsoft is involved with. It instead assumes whole buildings at microsoft are dedicated to serving just one user of ChatGPT at a time.

It also includes the manufacture of all the serve and graphics cards equipment, even though the former was used before ChatGPT, and will be used for other things as well… and the latter is only used in training.

You can check the study out yourself here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271

It’s completely junk. Worthless. Even uses a click bait title, and keeps talking about “the secret water foot print” as if it’s uncovering some conspiracy. It’s bunk science.

P.S It also doesn’t seem to understand that the bulk of GPT’s training was a one time cost, paid in 2021, with one smaller update in 2023.

I wonder how long until Xitter does this sort of thing to the EU Disease Information account:

Community Note:

Covid 19 is not real.

I feel like that level of misinformation is now possible there.

I don’t think the people still on X are going to be listening to the EU disease agency account.

They should (as you say) go where the people are… Which is threads and BlueSky. Follow the crowd.

I get the feeling the BlueSky vs Threads thing will take a while to resolve.

Yes, it’s in the air, it’s in what he says, the lies he tells, and whose emotions they’re aimed at. It’s in the American exceptionalism he sells.

That’s the vision the left has to fit into, and it’s been done before. Bernie was doing it in 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug

Compare that coherent vision of American exceptionalism with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk4ueY9wVtA

Tell lies that make them feel better than the lies the other guy is telling.